THE SINKING OF THE OROTAVA.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5790, 6 February 1897, Page 6

THE SINKING OF THE OROTAVA.

THE BOARD OF TRADE INQUIRY.

[Per Press Association^ LONDON, Feb. 4. The Board of Trade inquiry into the Orotava disaster absolved the owners aud the chieE and second officers from blame, but did not hold the second engineer entirely blameless.

Our London correspondent, writing on Dec. 24, refers to the sinking- of the Orotava. He says :— " On Monday afternoon the ballast tanks were empty, and coaling was proceeding, all the ports being obligingly open. Suddenly the vessel listed heavily to starboard ; there was a rush of water through the ports, a scramble for the shore amongst terrified dock hands, and the thing was done. I do not wonder the inquiries of the Press at the Orient" Company's office's"' 'are' being brusquely answered. After the precisely similar mishap to the Austral ' ;in Sydney, it is scandalous beyond words that such a catastrophe should have been possible. A superior person in Fenchurch Avenue told the reporters accidents of the kind were 'of common occurrence/ but, of course, when a big liner was involved the affair attracted more notice. Five lives having been lost this time, it does not, however, seem probable the Board of Trade will take this casual view of the incident. The awful suddenness of the catastrophe was its most remarkable characteristic. Even when the sWip began to t\irn, danger was not seriously suspected for a time. Some, of the men cracked jokes until the seriousness of the situation became patent. The ship listed to starboard, the port holes were open, and the water poured in in immense volumes, while nothing could be done to save the vessel. In a short time her upper dock on the starboard side was under water, and before long the promenade deck was also submerged. 'So great was the tilt of the Orotava that her foremast overhung' the warehouses on the opposite side of the' quay, and it was feared : that the mast would snap. This, however, did not occur. All the lifeboats on the promenade were smashed, together with the davits. The five victims ■were clearing the water-ballast tank, as is usual after every long voyage. Amongst experts at the dock the accident is generally believed to be due to miscalculation in coaling the vessel. The men were almost entirely at work in the starboard bunkers, and the greater weight at this side of the ship caused a heavy list, which gradually brought, the lower range o£ ports of the big liner into touch with the water. The stream slowly trickling in at first soon increased the pressure upon the starboard side of the ship, and then when the water began to flow in more quickly, it obtained such a grip as rendered the righting of the jvessel impossible, and she settled down in an incredibly short space of time. To close the ports when once the water was pouring in was, of course, beyond the strength of man, and as the ship canted over the water rose in turgid columns over the decks." A correspondent of thtS Daily Mail writes : — " I happened to be with the late Sir William Pearce in his library at Glasgow when he received a cablegram announcing the sinking of the Austral in Sydney harbour. He said at once, ' I know how it was done. If they had tried to scuttle her they could not have done it. They have simply anchored her fore' and aft in a strong" tide-way, and pumped out the ballast on the port side while coaling her on the starboard, and thej^ have gone on coaling her until the water has lapped into the port holes. From that moment the ship was lost.' • This conjecture turned out to be absolutely correct."