AN ILLUSION SHATTERED.

Observer, Volume XXVII, Issue 46, 3 August 1907, Page 2

AN ILLUSION SHATTERED.

The Harbour Master and the Calliope Dock.

THE good men and true who composed the jury in the memorable Calliope Dock action, in which £15,000 damages were claimed on account of the damage to the steamer Mamari, have been supplied with sound reason for annoyance with the Auckland Harbour Board. Their verdict sheltered the Board absolutely from liability. But it was based on the finding that the blocks were in design, construction and condition suitable for the dock and for docking the Mamari. Many people of experience and judgment were of a contrary opinion, out that is beside the question. The jury were the sole judges on points of fact. And having arrived at the conclusion they did, and having protected the Harbour Board from serious liability, the Supreme Court jurj r were surely entitled to some degree of protection from the Board. But the Board has displayed no consideration whatever for the feelings of the jury.

If it had been disposed to do so, or had not been simple to the degree of extreme verdancy, it would last week have considered the report from the Harbour Master on the blocks and other docking gear in camera, and would also have taken pains to prevent the details of that report from being published in the press. The Harbour Master was one of the most important witnesses on the Harbour Board side. He was regarded as a man of experience entitled to speak with authority. His evidence was to the effect that the blocks were in no way faulty, and this evidence exercised some influence on the minds of the jury. Now, the Harbour Master has submitted a "report to the Board, which has been given prominence in the press, in which he practically condemns the blocks' and emphatically stultifies the jury and its finding. They say that open confession is good for the soul, but in this particular instance it must be exceedingly disconcerting to- the minds of that jury. * * *

According to the. report, the doubling of the blocks in the centre and at either end of the dock is necessary. Further, all the

blocks want raising eight inches. Also, a permanent diver and shipwright ought to be employed. Moreover, the alternate blocks should be left solid, without cradles or wedges, as at present. Likewise, pohutukawa ought to be used for tk« blocks instead of ironbark. In addition, Oaptain Duder says that the kauri shores are given to buckling, thereby being somewhat weakened, ' and he recommends the substitution of Oregon pine. Finally, on the top of this wholesale condemnation,' he says that some of the keel blocksar* worn out or in bad 6rder. Really, the frankness of this report is overwhelming. But surely it is a thousand pities that it was not available when the Supreme Court jury was in the throes of perplexing deliberation on the vexed question of the efficiency of the dock gear. Les* than a month ago, the jury found that the blocks were in a condition suitable for the dock and for docking the Mamari. Now, Captain Duder t tells the Board complacently, and the Board hastens to communicate the fact to the public, that some of the blocks are worn out.

If , as the jury so recently decided, there was no fault to be found with the blocks, the report from the Harbour Master, and the considerable renewals that he recommends, are equally superfluous and unnecessary. However, it is quite evident that Captain Duder and the jury are not of otic mind on the question. With artless simplicity, seeing the issues that so reoently depended Otn the stability of the blocks, the Harbour Master is prepared with a reason for his report and recommendations. These matters are very important, he says, because of the large class of steamers using Calliope Dock and the experience- RECENTLY GAINED. This is a delightfully quaint admission that he, at all events, is anxious to avail himself of the lessons he has learnt from' the Mamari casualty. * ■ * *

" The experience recently gained " is a tacit admission by the Harbour Master, if not by the Board, that things in the dock were not what they ought to have been when the Mamari accident happened. If there was any doubt that this is his opinion, however, it is wholly removed by the proposals he makes. If the blocks were sound and stable four months ago, why should it be necessary to replace them now as worn out ? If there were sufficient blocks four months ago, why shoiild it be considered essential to double them in the centre and at .either end now ? If the kauri shores were gi.-^n to buoklin.T rJioif-Dy bein^ weakened, why was the Board not honest enough to confess this in the Supreme Court. However, seeing how handsomely the jury behaved to the Board by pulling it out of its liability predicament, the least the Board could have done, from kindly consideration for the feelings of the jury, was to have kept the matter of the Harbour Master's report out of print until the improvements had been made and the Mamari episode forgotten.