THE CALLIOPE DOCK.

Observer, Volume XXVII, Issue 42, 6 July 1907, Page 2

THE CALLIOPE DOCK.

Verdict in the Harbour Board's Favour.

FROM the narrow point of view of immediate economy, the Harbour Board is to be congratulated upon having escaped the heavy liability consequent upon tlie accident to the Shaw Savill steamer Mamari in the Calliope Dock. But there is a much broader issue involved, concerning the popularity of the dock with the larger class of vessels trading to this port, and if the effect of this verdict is to restrain shipping companies from making use of the dock for their vessels,' except on occasions of extreme emergency, the consequences of the calamity and the subsequent lawsuit may. prove to be most disastrous to the port. We have invested an immense sum of money in the construction of this dock and the fitting up of workshops and other necessary appurtenances. Of what avail will all this expenditure be if the dock is boycotted by the very class of vessels for which it was provided? We have g^one to great lengths in the endeavour to popularise the dock with the oceangoing shipping, but if the effect of the verdict in our favour is to drive away the trade that has already been secured, the advantage will unquestionably be a negative one.

From the outset, this claim has presented itself tons as one for compromise rather than for fight. The Harbour Board has fought, and has won, but the victory can only be classed as the worst of bad business. It would have been infinitely better for the. port if the claim had been compromised, whatever the expense, because, with a larger dock in course of construction in Wellington and strong competition from other ports of the colony, our policy should have been to encourage ocean-going shipping to make free use of the Calliope Dock rather than to avoid it. Compromise would not have been a much more costly policy than the fighting one, because, notwithstanding our victory, the Harbour Board will have a fairly heavy legal bill to pay.

The answer that will be made to this argument is, of course, that it was necessary to establish a vindication of the management of the dock. But has the management of the Calliope Dock been vindicated ? Is it satisfactorily settled even now that the dock should not have been pumped out and the blocks examined after the Kaikoura lett it ? Naturally, the people of Auckland are gratified to learn that a local administrative body has escaped this considerable liability, but, in our own minds, is there not a deeply-rooted conviction that it was fortunate that the case was- heard in Auckland and not in some other city free from the prejudicing influence of local feeling and interests.

So far as the vindication of the local dock management goes, what does it amount to? Is there any system of efficient management at the -Calliope Dock at all? We pay an engineer £1000 a year, and, in. his evidence, he is reported as saying :— •« He had never at any time given an order for the

alteration or. raising of the blocks.". Id November last, Captain • Duder applied to witness for some men to raise the blocks at Calliope Dock. Witness sent for the foreman of works, and instructed him to do as the dockraaßter requested, informing him at the same time-that some jar rah timber would be sent over. He was not professionally concerned in connection with the raising of the blocks for the Kaikoura, and felt no responsibility' whatever in the matter. Blocks in the docks he had known were raised and lowered almost daily, and the task of having the work carried out always fell upon the dockraaster, and not the engineer. Engineers of docks had nothing whatever to do with lowering or raising blocks." ••■

•*• «» -^ The meaning of this evidently is that the Engineer accepts no responsibility for the management of the Calliope Dock. All the responsibility is placed upon the shoulders of the dockmaster, who is a pilot and seaman and not an engineer, and oh the foreman of works. Can it be argued for one moment thai) this is a satisfactory system, or one that will inspire confidence in the shrewd and calculating minds of shipowners? If we are to pay £1000 a year as salary to an engineer, surely the safe management of the Calliope Dock should be his chief consideration, seeing that it is the most important and valuable part of the harbour estate. If we are to maintain a costly harbour 'engineer, it is not sufficient that bis time should be devoted almost exclusively to wharf construction.

Now that the Board has secured a favourable verdict, and escaped liability for the claim of £15,000, it behoves the members, as sound business men, to take such immediate steps as are best calculated to counteract the damaging consequences of this accident. If there is no satisfactory and trustworthy system of dock manage ruent, the sooner some such system is established the better it will be for the port and all concerned. It is idle to imagine that our dock business will not suffer from this occurrence. To take refuge in such a comfortable assurance is simply entertaining ourselves in a fool's paradise. It is important to the port that ship-owners should be encouraged to use the Calliope Dock as freely as possible, and, it they have reason to entertain any doubts concerning its management or want of management, the duty rests upon us of promptly establishing a system that will restore and maintain their confidence in this important department of harbour administration.