Wharf Berthage at Bluff

Southland Times, Issue 19471, 26 November 1904, Page 1

Wharf Berthage at Bluff

A COMPLAINT AND A CtiAIlC. At the meeting: 6t the Harbour Board yesterday a letter was received from Captain East, . Marine Superintendent for the Tyser Dine, nuiJUn'g a complaint. The letter stated that on the test visit of the B.s. Star of, Australia to the Bluff on 29th June, she was 'berthed by the harbourmaster at o. berth ZNo. 2) where there was only 25ft; a t low wat«v. The steamer was drawing 27ft. Gin. '"'raft, and at low water dried aft. She subsequently was shifted to the deep water berth. At the same time > the : master of the steamer informed the harbourmaster verbally tnat, he^aijtitfpated' damage to the bbttoitt of 'the stefimer through her being berthed where there was »ot sufficient water for her to lie afloat at all states of the tide. Upon the steamer's arrival in London she was docked and Jt -was found that two plates O n the starboard slide aft had 1/een So badly dented that Lloyds' surveyor required ihem to be replaced. The repairs cost £872. and this amount was^clafaned from the 3oard. " The harbourmaster reported oh the letter. At" that season of the year the local shipping representatives, for reasons best known to themselves, were most anxious afaput the prompt berthing of their ships in order to get them despatched on certain dates. The Star of Australia ariived. on a Sunday morning, and the tug put out, but the weather become foggy and nothing could be seen of her. . m the meantime the s.s. Suffolk was sighted: but was' anchored* outside to give preference of berth to the Star of ' Australia, which was fitst sighted. The deep water accommodation wa« toetf occupied by the steamers Wakaanl *ttd Karamee. The latter was tains to sea on the afternoon tide, and. the St«r of Australia was immediately afterwards boarded l.y the harbourmaster. He was not informed till then of -the ship's draught, which was 2<Jft. Gin. aft (toot 27ft. Gin.) He fully explained to the captain before going into port that the ship's heel would take the ground at low water ilongside the wharf, which it did, but 1 no other part of the ship could possibly have touched while lying at Bluff/ wharf. In May, 1898, trie s.s. Waimate completed her loading for London in this nerth, to a draft of 2flft. sin. aft and 22ft. sin. forward, and although her heel was on the ground! at low water she did not sustain any damage. "This port has o'ten been credited, without any reasonable cause, with such incidents as is alleged to have happened to the Star of Australia, but the fact of the Kftip having visited so many' ports in Australia and New Zealand, Uffjv© and "after leaving Bluff on that voyage, makes Ihe communication upon the matter from. Captain East appear fro me an extraordinary one." In 'a further report the harbourmaster stated that the captain ot the Star of Australia, neither verbally nor officially, stated to him- that he in tirJTlJVflri., „*^ -—""" Suspected that the ship had received injury through her, > pgel ' being on - the ground at low water it was .nut reasonable to sup- ' pose that he. would have obtained the services of a diver, to examine the ship's bottom before proceeding to sea, as' was customary in such cases. . Mr Wadded moved that the letter and reports be referred to the Harbour and Works Committee. There mrght be some more information to be got from the Tyser people, Mr Dunlop did not think «t advisable to refer this question to the committee in its .present stage. The Board should - decline to acknowledge the claim and throw the onus of prbof on the Tyser Company. He considered it showed great, negligence on the part of the captain; if he anticipated damage, not having 'given" the harbourmaster or the Board written notice in connection with it. By "referring the matter to the committee the Board Would practically acknowledge that there wbb something behind it Vv Members had reports from the harbourmaster, " their executive officer, and they were . sufficient to justify the Board in rejecting the claim- He moved that the Board decline to acknowledge it. . Mr Green seconded the motion. The claim appeared to him to ( be a " try on," more than anything 1 else. The vessel called at several other ports after leaving Bluff, and nothing was _ said about | the affair at the Bluff. „ I The Chairman (Mr Bain) qwito agreed with the amendment. The Board could ig>ain nothing, by sending', the letter to the I committee, as the barboundoster's re|p«rU w*i» »lre**y available. Personally - be d« not ih ink toe 'Tawr Co. had the i tiightet chtnc* of «a«tdiiiy the claim on the .-'Board, -liftd \bjr S«ading it (o the tordtniHtt^^^^mf*ti)f might think that fl«W^Myittj™^Ciw)«i."<» >iew the iubl — tor .itTSi&ir u&* **** vrobably thoy «OuM f>roA * liWt furtlier for the chtfque Whfch they to kindly asked for. He would strongly object to the company receiving anything on even stronger evidence. If there was anyone^at fault, he. considered it was the master, who was warned before he entered the harbour of the position he would have to take in the berth. „ Mr Waddel (who is stevedore for the Tyser line), said that his ideft of moving the letter to the tfomimUtee was that it could be looked into thoroughly. He „.. thought the company should -lie treated eouHec-usly instead Of. reccing a point) < Warik refusnl to have Anything inoro to 4 do with their complaint. If it were a New Zealand Shipping Company's steamer it would be treated differently. Mr Dunlop (who is local manager for that' company) : That is a oersonal matter. •• ■'"; ■ .-',•■ . ■■•'■ ', ' JPhe Chairnmn- said that remark) should not hove been browgfct into the discussion l^y Mr Wfiaddel. If the i.arbburmastor had not reported on the affair ho would have agreed to the letter going to the si conunittee. They were not Jikely to get any thing further from the harbour- '.; master. Mr Waddel sug«eßted that the company had not given proper particulars. The Board might be able to show ttiat' j^be steamer couM not have toucheU on; the place mfllcated. " Mr Dunlop, in a personal exolanation, said' that it had been, suggested that his company's ships, would! hoy© been Ireated differeniJly. If o«® had been concerned ha would not hiLve acted in the matter. Mr Waddel; Well, I" doa't know, Mr> Dunlpl'. ■• The amendment refusing >o" recogniso . the claim was carried, Mr Waddol dissenting. . ';