DERELICTS IN THE PACIFIC.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12087, 16 August 1917, Page 4

DERELICTS IN THE PACIFIC.

■ BRIDGE AND BURNED VESSEL. Information concerning two derelicts in the Pacific has reached the Collector of Customs at Auckland. Tho first report comes through the collector at Suva. He learned from the master of a vessel which arrived at the Fiji port on the voyage, from Newcastle chat, on July 12 last, in latitude 24deg Omin south and longitude lGßdeg 24£ min east, ho passed what appeared to be a small river bridge. Its length he estimated at 40ft, and its width 25ft. It had five perpendicular stanchions, painted white, about 4ft Gin high. Tho decking of the derelict was covered with harnacle.s, so that tho bridge had evidently been in the water for some time, it would be dangerous to strike, being heavily timbered. As regards the second derelict, tho master of a vessel has reported to Mr Ridings that he observed it on August 8 last 111 latitude 24deg 36miu south and longitude 176deg 33min east.. It was drifting to the E.N.E. before a moderate wind and sea. The master kept his ship away, reduced speed and circled round it. The derelict appeared to be a large two-masted schooner which had been burnt out. Two sets of chain plates wore showing above the hull, and tho derelict was down by the head, apparently to her anchors, and was about one-third submerged. The stem head showed at times, and waft painted white. The of the hull was painted with hematite, and appeared to be quite fresh. There was no sign of marine growth. The rudder was missing. The hull was estimated to be 150 ft long by works carrying the name were either burnt or washed away, the master kept j bis course. It is understood that there was no sign of a bowsprit on this derelict. The master of the vessel which passed it cannot assert positively that it was a two-masted schooner, and is of opinion that it might have been a small wooden steamer, which would, of course, account for the absence of a bowsprit. A theory discussed in shipping circles in Auckland was that the two derelicts might really have been one and the same. That is discounted, however, by the descriptions of the two masters, the reported dimensions of the second derelict, for example, being considerably larger than the first. The latitude was much the same in each case, and the difference in longitude would be about made up in the interval between the two dates given, allowing for a drift of about fifty miles a day-