I.— 9.

C. CBOTTCHER.]

5

62. I have been living for thirty years at Whangarei, and I do not know of a single accident that has arisen through bad seamanship. The "Triumph" is the only case I know of ?—That may be right; but I say that where a ship is allowed to go to sea with incompetent men she becomes a danger to navigation, and she should not be allowed to go. Vessels which run out of the river limits at Auckland generally have certificated men on board of them. If shipowners carried out the law and only manned their ships according to the law there would be many more wrecks than there are. The shipowners where they need only put on one man usually put on two. The Northern Steamship Company could run all their ships with river-certificated men, but they do not; they have many home-trade-certificated men, and very often foreign-going-certificated men. 63. What is the object of your association in wishing to compel the owners of these small trading-vessels within river limits to incur unnecessary expense—to provide accommodation for members of the crew when they do not ask or wish for it ?—Why do you say they do not ask or wish for it ? 64. Because I know these men and where they live ? —But you do not know what communications have passed between the men and my association. 65. I do not know that ? —Well, they say they wish it. 66. Are you personally acquainted with Auckland Harbour ?—Yes; I have lain there with ships and run about there for years. 67. In within-river-limits ships? —No; a foreign-going ship. 68. Mr. Millar.] Has your association given any consideration to the manning scale ? —Yes, and I have notes about it. 69. From your practical knowledge and a knowledge of that scale do you consider that the scale could be reduced by any means with safety to the travelling public ?—No. The only way of doing it that I could see was by giving an equivalent. If you could get two ordinary seamen they would be better than one A.B. They would get lower wages. 70. Do you not consider that there ought to be two different scales of manning altogether for purely cargo-boats and passenger-boats ? —I think a vessel carrying over ten or fifteen passengers should be termed a passenger-steamer, because where they have many boats to man in an emergency they are not manned at all, and as for getting the boats out in boat-drill—it is something awful. At times you have not got the men to get the boats out or to swing them. 71. The " Botomahana," according to our Act, would be only compelled to carry seven able seamen. Do you think she would be able with only seven men to get her boats out ? —I am sure she could not. I was on her for fifteen months. 72. And could the " Takapuna "do so ? —I am sure she could not. 73. Do you think it possible to prepare two separate schedules, one for cargo and the other for passenger-ships? —Yes, I do. 74. And that consideration should be paid to the number of boats carried?— Yes. Boat-drills and fire-stations are really the most important things for the safety of the passengers and crews, and ought to be provided for. 75. The adjustment would in no way increase the cost to any company which had a reasonably large fleet, inasmuch as the reduction in number on the cargo-boats would go on to the passenger-boats ?—Yes ; a passenger-boat should be better manned than a cargo-boat. 76. Mr. Hutcheson.] In reference to the matter of an official log to be kept by the engineering staff, are you of opinion that provision should be made in this case compelling the engineer to submit his official log for perusal by the captain whenever the captain requires it ?—Yes. 77. Would that remove your objection to the engine-room keeping an official log? —No. 78. Are you aware that the object of an official log is merely to make the evidence disclosed in the log at any inquiry, Magisterial or otherwise, more reliable, and to put a greater sense of responsibility on the officer keeping that book than is at present upon him ? —But would not the same amount of responsibility rest upon him if the entry remained in the captain's log? Would the captain sign the chief engineer's log ? 79. Not necessarily. The object, I take it, for the engineer's log being made an official log is to enable the engineer to put down matter of a highly technical nature which probably the captain has no knowledge of. Provided it were at all times open to the perusal of the captain, so that he might satisfy himself as to what the engineer was putting in his log, would there be any objection? Would it lead at any time to doing away with the discipline of the ship; Ido not mean now, but later on ? Would there be a risk of taking away the authority of the master and setting up two heads in the ship?—We maintain that the master's log is sufficient for all entries on the ship. If there are any technical matters could not the engineer put them down and the master sign them. If there are to be columns in which to put special entries, could that not be done in the present log the engineer keeps, that being produced the same as a special log? We think one official log is sufficient on board. 80. In the event of the clause being retained in the Bill do you think it would be desirable to put the specific instruction in the Act that the log shall at all times be available to the captain ? —I do. 81. Mr. T. Mackenzie.] —You say there are seven seamen on the "Botomahana" now?— Yes. 82. Do the majority of seamen know how to handle a boat?—l should say the majority do, but there are individual instances where a steward knows more about it than a sailor. 83. The handling of a boat in the open sea is no special part of the training of a sailor ?—No, because he may go in a foreign-going steamer for a whole voyage and never touch an oar. 84. In a steamer like the "Botomahana" you have a very much larger proportion of stewards : what proportion of stewards are able to take a hand at the boats ? —The whole lot of them do.