ELINGAMITE WRECK INQUIRY.

Otago Witness, Issue 3014, 20 December 1911, Page 6

ELINGAMITE WRECK INQUIRY.

CAPTAIN EXONERATED. WELLINGTON. December 11. The bearing of the inquiry was continued to-day. Captain Attwood gave evidence on his own behalf. On the Sunday on which the vessel struck he reduced the speed tc knots, or the lowest steering speed. When he saw the land it was two lengths away. He immediately telegraphed "Full speed astern," and put the helm over. The vessel stopped, but did not go astern, and ran just gently up to the rock. Had the vessel gone astern then it would not have been too late to save her. He had ascertained his position by dead reckoning, and believed he was five or six miles abreast of the Three Kings. Until it was found that the islands were ■ wrongly charted he had never been able to account for his position. Now he understood that he had made his calculations on a perfectly wrong basis. After further evidence the Solicitorgeneral said the charges he proposed to submit against Captain Attwood were—(l) negligent navigation (a) in running at excessive speed through the fog, (b) in taking no amount of risk of deviation throuigh northerly .current, (c) in not sounding; (2) failure of duty after the wreck (a) in allowing boats to leave without compasses or provisions, (b) in allowing Captain Reid's boats to leave without a full complement of passengers, (c) in not standing by the rafts. After Mr Wilford had addresesd the court on behalf of Captain Attwood, and the Solicitor-general had replied, the court adjourned till next morning. December 12. " Captain Atwood must be acquitted of the charges made against him, and we shall so report to the department." This is the essence of the finding of the Court of Inquiry into the loss of the Elingamite on the Three Kings on 9th November, 1902. The court consisted of Sir Robert Stout and Captains R. Smith and Crisp. The captain, said the court, gave notice to the engineer to lower the steamer's speed to '4£ knots an hour, and the speed of the steamer was lowered. If the speed did exceed 4-£ knots, that was not the fault of the master. He had the right to asume that his instructions had been obeyed. With respect to the. alleged negligence in navigation, since the hearing in 1902 the islands had been resurveyed, and it was discovered that the chart used by the captain was wrong, the islando being shown about one and a-half miles further north than they were in reality. If the chart had been accurate the captain would have had notice that his 'ship was a mile and a-half nearer to the land than he supposed. When a charge of-negligence is made against a master in the conduct of a ship it must be proved just as clearly as if made against a person for some negligent act, and it has been laid down in many cases that if the evidence is two-faced, then the case of negligence is not proved. The vessel was assumed to be making 12 knots an hour from Saturday at noon until 10

on Sunday. Though" it was foggy or hazy during all the period from Saturday afternoon till 10 on Sunday, one could at times see five miles ahead, and at other times two miles. We do not think, therefore, considering the distance that could be seen ahead, that going at that rate of speed could be deemed negligent navigation. We must assume that the captain thought, and had a right to think, that the speed he desired to go at 10 on Sunday knots) was the speed the steamer was doing. This is not an excessive rate under the circumstances. We are mot convinced that it would have been safer for the vessel to have been stopped altogether. If she was in the set of a current, and if ©he was near the land, stopping altogether might have ended in disaster. As to the second charge that he had taken no account of the risk of deviation from the northerly currents,, in the New Zealand Pilot there is not a •statement that northerly currents are common at this part of the coast. He could not be presumed to know that soundings would determine the true position. With this Captain Blackburn agrees. It was unfortunate that he did not do so, as he may have found that he was closer to the Kings than he imagined. The charge of the boats was left to the officers. He gave instructions in that direction. What more he could do we are at a loss to know. Consideration of the circumstances concerning the raft will show so far as the charge is concerned' there is also no proof of any failure of duty on the part of the master. He remained on the bridge till the last. He was washed off by the sea. To say that he was negligent by not standing by the raft is absurd when it is remembered that the craft was drifting in thick fog with the current, and there is no evidence that the captain ever saw the raft. We have dealt with the two questions and the tliree charges which have been made against the master, and we have come to the conclusion that the captain must be acquitted of the charges made against him, and we shall so report to the department. We may add that in coming to this conclusion we are not making any reflection on the finding. The most important mistake in the chart has been discovered, and new soundings have been taken. Further, as to one or two points fresh evidence has cleared matters that in the first inquiry were left in doubt.