The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. SATURDAY, MARCH 18, 1911. THE KNIGHT OF THE GARTER.

Southland Times, Issue 16689, 18 March 1911, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. SATURDAY, MARCH 18, 1911. THE KNIGHT OF THE GARTER.

The finding arrived at by the Court of Enquiry after an investigation extending over two long days into the circumstances surrounding the grounding of the steamship Knight of the Garter in Bluff Harbour will be accepted by the public as meeting the necessities of the case. The public has an interest in the matter because Bluff harbour is public property. Its administrators are responsible to the people of the district, and when aa accident such as that which befel the Knight of the Garter occurs the port authorities are virtually put upon their trial before the public, and, furthermore, the reputation of the harbour for ease and safety of working is called in question. So far as the administration of the Harbour Board is concerned, it may fairly be claimed that the finding of the Court is not damaging to the reputation for vigilance and progressiveness which the Board has established by its work for a long period of years. It is true that the Court finds that the look-out service maintained at Stirling Point is wanting in efficiency, and that had the look-out men had their duties more clearly defined the accident might have been averted. But the inefficiency of the look-out service at Stirling Point was not the primary cause of the accident, and but for unfortunate errors in the “New Zealand Pilot” and in the “New Zealand Nautical Almanac,” Stirling Point would probably not have been mentionedThe flagstaff at Stirling Point was abandoned for the good and sufficient reason given by the harbourmaster in his evidence, when he said that in his experience extending over 27 years there had been no occasion to use it. The Harbour Board could not reasonably be expected to maintain a station for which no use had been found in 27 years, --s to the look-out service, the evidence shows that the Chief Pilot was misled by the information given to him at 10 minutes to six on the morning of the accident that the I'uigh of the Garter had anchored. He would accept this information the mere readily because he would naturally expect the ship to anchor, since pilotage at the Bluff is compulsory except for exempt ships, and the Knight of the Garter was non-exempt. It does seem that the system of conveying information from the look-out station to the pilots could be simplified and improved with a view to prompter action, and the Harbour Board will doubtless give the most careful consideration to the Court’s recommendation that such instructions should be issued to the pilots as will ensure their prompt boarding of vessels on arrival at the limits of pilotage waters whether the tide is then suitable or not .for bringing vessels In. Such instructions would seem to be the best possible safeguard against accident, but it may fairly be contended that it is the bounden duty of a nou-exempt ship to lie off the harbour until boarded by the pilot, and it was stated in evidence that it was a common thing at other ports for vessels to wait for hours, sometimes for a whole nisrht

.or a pilot. Unfortunately .the captain was misled by the “New Zeaand Pilot” into the belief ffiat he could safely proceed as far as Stirling Point, and that he would find the pilot there. In respect to this information the “New Zealand Pilot” is inaccurate, and the responsibility rests with those officers of the Board through whose hands the proof sheets passed. When the proofs were sent to I'.e Board's office for revision and amendment, the necessary corrections should have been made, and the Board would then have been more fully exonerated than it has been in the Court’s findings. Still, the inaccuracy referred to was neither the cause of the mishap nor an excuse for it. The captain’s counsel was justified in maintaining that the captain was entitled to rely upon the “New Zealand Pilot,” but counsel for the Harbour Board was equally justified In maintaining that whether the “New Zealand Pilot” was inaccurate in this respect or not, the captain should have known from the study of its pages that it was wrong to attempt to enter Bluff Harbour without a pilot. The Collector of Customs put the case concisely when he said that two blacks do not make a white, and that whatever excuse the captain had for proceeding as far as Stirling Point, he had none for proceeding further. When he failed to‘ get a pilot there he should have anchored. The Court takes the same view, for it finds that the master entered the harbour contrary to the sailing directions given in the “New Zealand Pilot.” It is exceedingly satisfactory to know that the enquiry disclosed no laxity or inefficiency on the part of the Harbour Board, and no lack of discipline in its control of the staff. That there is room for improvement in the look-out service at Stirling Point, and that the pilot staff might have shown greater zeal and activity, the Court of Enquiry has pointed out, and the Board may be relied upon to deal suitably with the matters brought under its notice. ■ So far as it affect? Captain Finnis, tb-> finding of the Court is not so much a matter of public importance, but it may be said that Captain Finnis has certainly not been harshly treated by the Court.