THE ELINGAMITE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 3, 13 December 1911, Page 7

THE ELINGAMITE.

CAPTAIN ATT WOOD ENTIRELY

EXONERATED

THE COURT’S FINDING

(Per Press Association.) Wellington, December 12. Captain Attwood must be acquitted of the charges made against him, and ho shall so report to the Department. This is the essence of the finding of the Court of Enquiry into the loss of the Elingamite on the Three Kings on the 9th November, 1902. The Court consisted of Sir Robert Stout (Chief Justice), and Captains R. Smith and Crisp. “The captain,” said the Court, “gave notice to the engineer to ..lower the steamer’s speed to 41 knots an hour. The speed of the steamer was lowered, and if the speed did not exceed 4J- knots that was not the fault of the master. He had the right to assume his instructions- would be obeyed. Regarding 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 islands '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 aiid a half nearer land than he supposed. When a charge of negligence was made against a master in the conduct of h'is ship it must be proved just, as clearly as if it were made against a person for some negligence, and the fact has been laid down in many cases that if the evidence was

two-faced, then a case of negligence could not be proved. The vessel was assumed to be making 12 knots an hour from Saturday at noon until 10 on Sunday. She was in open sea, away from land at times. Though it was foggy or hazy during all the period from Saturday afternoon till 10 on Sunday, one could at times see live miles ahead; at other times two miles.” ; The Court continued: “We do not think, therefore, considering the distance that could be seen ahead, that going at that rate of speed could bo deemed negligent navigation. Wo must assume that the captain thought, and had the, right to think, that'the speed be desired to go at 10 on Sunday (4) knots) was the speed the steamer was doing. This was not an excessive rate under the, circumstanpes. We are-; not convinced that it would have been safer for the ves-

sel to have stopped altogether. If she was in the set of the current, and if she was hear land, stopping altogether might have ended in disaster. As to the second charge, that he had taken no account of tile risk of deviation from the -northerly, currents, in the New Zealand Pilot there is not a statement that the northerly currents are common at that part of the coast. He could not be presumed to know that the soundings would determine the true position. With this, Captain BlackTinrne agrees. It was unfortunate he did not do so, as lie may have found he was closer to the Kings than he imagined. The charging of the boats was left to the officers. He gave instructions in this direction. What more he could do we are at a loss to know. Consideration of the circumstances concerning the rafts will show, so far as thecharge is concerned, there is no proof of any failure of duty on the part of the master. He remained on the bridge till the last, and was then washed off by the sea. To say that he was negligent in not standing by the rafts is, of course, absurd, when it is remembered that the craft was drifting in a' thick fog with the current, and there is not a tittle of evidence that the captain over saw the raft. “We have dealt with the two questions, and the three charges under each which have hcen made against the master, and we have come to the conclusion that the captain must lie acciuitted of the charges made against him, and we shall so report to the Department. We may add that in coming to this, our conclusion, we are not making any reflection on the finding cf the previous Court. Since that finding the most important mistake in the chart has been discovered, and new soundings have heeu taken. Further, as to one or two points, the fresh evidence has cleared up matters that at the first enquiry were left in doubt.”