The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, APRIL 25, 1890.

Timaru Herald, Volume L, Issue 4827, 25 April 1890, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. FRIDAY, APRIL 25, 1890.

The evidence given at the Official Inquiry into the wreck of the barque Emilie confirms m the fullest manner all the reports as to her shocking state of dilapidation aud rottenness when she sailed on her last ill-fated voyage. Her condition could scarcely have been worse. As one witness swore :—"Everything! about -her was old and rotten ; the bolts were falling out, and the rigging was much worn." She had linked : badly on her voyage from San Francisoo to ' Melbourne. ■ The crew were at the pumps day aud night, and she had five feet of water m her hold when she was docked af Williamstown. On her lust voyage the pumping began (19 soon as she had left tbe harbour, and had to be coutinued every two hours. She Buccumbed to the first touch of bad weather; The collapse waa complete. When Bhe heeled over, the cabin and forward deckbonses fell out. The fore and main masts went by the board, and tbe mizen topmast broke off. The story of her thorough unsoundne33 is absolutely complete, and to crown all, her timber cargo had been improperly stowed. It is true that tbe underwriters' inspector at the Bluff deposed that, m hia opinion, she wns "a safe risk " for the class of cargo she was carrying, but the opinion is worthless m face of the multitude of sworn facts as to her actual condition, and the further fact that she became an unmanageable wreck-as soon as she experienced something a very little stronger than a fresh breeze. Why was she allowed to go to sea r 1 We are m doubt as to what the answer should be. No complaint was made to tho Collector of Customs or other authority m regard to her. But could she have been stopped if such a complaint had been made? or ought the authorities to have acted of their own motion if they were aware of her condition ? She was a foreign vessel, and it has been freely asserted that there was therefore no legal power of interference. We notice that an Official Inquiry was loudly called for, but though one has now been held, it was stated m the course of it by tho Collector of Customs that " tho vessel being foreign- owned, section 3 of the Shipping and Seamen's Act would not apply, «nd it was questionable whether the inquiry was legal. It was only held because all evidence regarding the wreck had not been taken by the Coroner at the inquest on tho mute. The Coroner had then full power to go into the circumstances of the case." If there is no power of interference with a foreign sailing vessel, and no power to hold an inquiry iv ousc of her wreck, is tho law tbe oauie with regard to foreign steamers or any foreign vessels carrying passengers ? The case is one wbich clearly demands carefully looking into.

At length tbe Anglican Primacy difficulty has been effectually got rid of. Tho General Synod at its silting yesterday proceeded with the election, nnd the ballot resulted m ri majority of all the ordei-B for the Bishop of 'Wellington, whose position as Primate is now placed beyond dispute. Tbe Synod appear to have acted wisely m avoiding all controversy on tbe points which have been so long under discussion, and some credit is due to the Bishop of Nelson for tbe very moderately worded address with which he opened tbe proceedings on tbe first day. It was not ont of place to give a summary of the events wbicb had made n, specinl silting of tbe Synod necessary, but be performed bis task judiciously and introduced as little debatable matter aa possible. It was fortunate that he adopted that coarse, for notwithstanding a desire that things should pass off harmoniously, there wero not a few members present who were fully prepared for a brisk argument if a good opening bad been given. During the last few days there has been a good deal of speculation .aB to what tbo result of tho ballot would be (supposing tbe Synod to adopt that method- of getting out of their difficulty), nnd we have moi-& thau onco beard the opinion expressed that tbe Bishop of Nelsou would either be successful at the ballot, or would, as senior Bishop, become Primate m consequence of no one of those nominated securing a majority of all tbo orders — Bishops, clergy, and laity. We never shared that opiuion, but always strongly inclined to tbe belief that tbo Synod would adhere to their original choice. There- really waa no reason whiob should have induced them to make a change, and to have dono so would have caßfc an undeserved Blur upon tho Bishop of Wellington. It would, wo think, buve been m, better tasto if no other Bishop bad been, nominated, and if the ballot bad been taken merely as tbe simplest mode of validating tbe former election. Tbo Synod could have arrived at the samo result by a a special Validation Act, but it would have taken more tituo to deal with tbo question m that munner, and very likely m the course of tho debates on the Bill a good deal of bitter feeling would hnvo boon developed. Moreover it ia evidont that the adherentß of tbe Bishop of Nelson were determined that their nominee should bavo another chance oil election, and their opposition to a mere vulidnting Bill would have been very determined. Iho- matter is now ended, but there ia a point connected^ with tho recent disputo which th« General Synod should deal with as soon aa possible. It is necessary that the powers of tbo Standing Commission should bo more clearly defined than they are at present. It will bo remembered that both Bishop Harper and tho Biahop of , Nelsou were of opinion that the Standing Commissionbad power to review tho action of the General Synod m tbo first election of tbe Bishop of Wellington. The Bishop' of Nelson recommended a reference to tbo Standing Commission nnd Bishop Harper concurred, Tho Standing Commission, did no.t hesitate- to accept tbe i-esponaliiility; lind' everyone knows the result. But no sooner bad tbe deoißiou;

been made known that it waa seriously questioned on the ground that tbe action of the Standing Commission -was ultra vires, for that they could not npset the work of the superior body from which they derived their authority. Clearly if that point had not been taken, the Bishop of Wellington and his adherents — the majority of the Anglican Church — would have had no case at all, and the action of the Bishop of Nelson m assuming tbe Primacy as senior Bishop oould not have been questioned. The election which haß now taken place has not decided as to the jurisdiction of the Standing Commission, and it should be defined m order that future blunders and unpleasantness may be avoided.

[Since this article was put m type, we received the telegram referring to the Bishop of Nelson's remarks when replying to_. the vote of thanks accorded him for the ma oner m which be bad diaebarged the duties of senior Bishop siuce the resignation of the Primate. Possibly some of the newspaper writers did not fully understand tbo Primacy question at the outset, but they very Boon knew all about it, and were quite capable[of forming an opinion of the conduct of the Bishop of Nelson, — more capable we believe than he himself was. The verdict waa very unfavourable to -Hiß Lordship, and with excellent reason. As far as we arei aware there has been no attempt on the part of the newspapers, or any of them, 'to set members of the Synod against one another. There has, however, .been from first to last an honest desire oil the part of the newspapers that the Primacy difficulty should be ended as speedily as possible, and that the , Church scandal caused by the dogged obstinacy of the Bishop of Nelson should be minimised.]