EDITORIAL COMMENT.

Progress, Volume VII, Issue 9, 1 July 1912, Page 1167

EDITORIAL COMMENT.

Some little while ago a deputation of architects waited on the Minister of. Public Works in Wellington with a request for wider recognition of the competitive system as applied to the various buildings erected in the interest of the various Government departments. It seems to us that they would have liked to have had all the buildings thrown open to the competition of the profession. But that would be out of the question so long as the Government maintains an architectural department. For very good reason the Government found it necessary some time since to set up a law department minimising the expense of law to the State and making its practice in all things more uniform. The results were beneficial beyond the highest expectations. The same principle. applies to the Department of Architecture, if in a less degree. On the other hand, it is desirable on great occasions to have wider scope for talent, and on such occasions the practice of competition might be well resorted to. We go further and say that with the ex-

eellent talent now in the profession in the Dominion it is possible. But this reminds us that the practice of the Government already is to call for competitive work. We mean that the precedent has been established at the request of one branch of the Legislature, with such good results that it ought for the future to be the rule. But beyond that it would not be advisable or possible for the Government to go. The ordinary work of Post Offices, minor railway stations, normal school building (we use the adjective in the untechnical sense) may be left to the Department, and the task of designing extraordinary buildings handed over to the competitive designer. * * * The old Government, with its links of twenty-two years, has been ousted and the new, with its recollections of the same number of years of Opposition, is firmly in power. The fact will'be regarded by the public according to the political standpoint of each individual member. ' But all are, we feel sure, agreed that the new Premier is entitled to so much from a sportsmanlike and fair-minded people. Nor is this all his claim. As one who has shown endurance, perseverance and greatness of mind in adversity, and a lofty equanimity m the hour of long-delayed triumph, he deserves the consideration of the fairest of trials. He begins with the finances of the Dominion in perfect order; a mounting revenue, a surplus of record proportions, and a vast loan authorization, as was made clear by the retiring Finance -Minister on the last day of his occupation cf the Government benches. The question for the public is whether he will last. To that the answer is simple enough. If he will take advantage of the general distrust of Labour caused by its pretensions and disagreements, he will stay on indefinitely. United Labour, claiming to speak for the majority, proclaimed that alliance with Liberalism was to it impossible, and at the same time made a public attempt to shake hands with syndicalistic anarchism. It is attempting to retrieve its hideous error by asking all men who work to drop the technical definition of worker and join its ranks. But this is an even worse insult to the moderate ; majority which constitutes the bulk of true Liberalism in New Zealand. ..Now therefore is the opportunity for a coalition which will- secure the majority of mankind in this Dominion against the attempted domination - of an organised minority following blindly the

lead of a teacher imported from abroad insulting the population by the suggestion that it does not know, enough to take charge of its own destiny. If Mr. Massey can engineer his way to a coalition on this line he will have a tenure of power ' practically permanent. * «= $ There is no satisfaction in following a great disaster with “I told you so.” The only satisfaction possible in such circumstances would be on the part of the audience at seeing the prophet branded with a whip. But there is such a thing as justice even to one’s self. In that spirit of justice we venture to remind our readers of something we said about the possibilities of the future when ' discussing the launch of the “Titanic” in our number of last August. Speaking of the alleged completeness of man’s victory over nature as exemplified by this magnificent structure, we said: “All the force's of nature are at his command. Are they? Well, some day a rebellious berg, envious of the other berg (the berg that is spelt with a u,’ and is warm and comfortable and handy), some rebel of that sort, will get in the way of your leviathan, and then!” We have only to add now that a berg did get in the way and — The point is that the berg would spell disaster, and it did. Now what is the moral of this disaster? Listen to Mr. Conrad, the writer of things maritime, a man with more force than Bullen, and more directness than Clark Russell, with practical knowledge equal to either one or the other or both; in short, a recognised high authority of the sea. He speaks, in a- recent ■writing of , the “fatuous drowning of all these people, who to the last moment put their trust in mere bigness, in the reckless affirmations of commercial men and mere technicians, and in the irresponsible paragraphs of newspapers booming these ships.” “Fatuous drowning” is good. , v The first element of fatuity was the belief in the unsinkable character of the leviathan realise it when you read that poor Colonel Aster, replying to the survivor who advised him to “jump’.’ with him and swim to the nearest boat, which was only half full, declared that only a fool would do such a thing because “this ship is unsinkable, Sir,” Not long ago a report, supposed to be scientific, because made by men of “ expert reputation, engineers skilled in maritime construction and the incidental scientific formulae, was actually sent to the Board of Trade.

The Board shelved it, and it passed muster - with the thoughtless world as an accepted demonstration. Do not, therefore, blame the poor Colonel. Moreover, the theory has its apologists even yet. - After seventeen hundred of our fellow creatures went to their death on that awful night off Cape Race, fatuous people with long lines of alphabet after their names keep on declaring that if the ship had struck the berg end on all would have been -well. They insist that the “Arizona” some years ago went full butt on to a berg, and confined the damage to the fore compartment, being able to get into port all right. Of course these things . are a little mysterious. But the cases are not on all fours. The “Arizona” was under 5000 tons, and did not have a higher steam capacity than fourteen knots. Besides, she was not going full speed. On the other hand, take the “Titanic,” with 45,000 tons going at not less than 21 knots, and probably much faster. Take also the incident of the Wellington wharf some years ago. Our wharves are mighty structures of wood and iron, to which everybody points when descanting on the skill and success of Mr. Ferguson’s work as engineer to the Wellington Harbour Board. A steamer, forging slowly up to her berth on one of these grand structures, took some eight feet out of it just as a child takes a semicircle out of a slice of bread and jam. In Sydney Mr. Conrad saw a similar trick precisely. A big liner coming to the Circular Quay, then a wood and iron structure, had got all way off her, falling short of the right distance from the wharf. Her skipper ordered a turn or two of the screw, and she got them. A pilot standing by said she would not crush an eggshell if she did foul the wharf. And then she fouled. It was a ramming effect, which ripped and tore and splintered the piles, stringers and baulks with the noise of a great tree crashed down by the gale. Mr. Conrad asks what if the wharf represented an iceberg in a fog and a ship went end on to it at the most slow of fumbling feeling rates of speed. He says something would be damaged, but not the berg. We thus understand the hesitation with which the witnessesexpertsbefore the enquiry in London are hesitating to say anything about the unshakable effect of compartments. But “if the ship had struck end on it would have been all right.” And how are you going to make sure of a strike head on ? Are you to instruct the officers to that effect? Mr. Conrad in this connection grows prophetic, imagining a scene of the near future when things shall have developed according to present appearance of progress. It is an examination for Mate before the Board of Trade. Grizzled examiner speaking to applicant, young, innocent, rosy: “You are at night on the bridge in charge of a 150,000 ton ship with a motor track, organ lift, &c., &c., &e., &c., with a full cargo of passengers, a full crew of fifteen hundred cafe waiters, two sailors and a boy, three collapsible boats as per Board of Trade Regulations, and going at your three-quarter speed of say about forty knots. You suddenly perceive a berg on the bow. What would you do?” To _ which the applicant answers without hesitation, “Put the helm amidships in order to hit end on.” So much for the “end-on” theory.

In this humorous skit we have other points of fatuity sketched for us. There is the boat fatuity with which the whole world is dealing, and there is the manning fatuity, under which the expert seaman is kept at as low a figure as possible and the land lubber element is» put practically in charge of the ship. Had there been seamen enough in the “Titanic,” it is, said by experts, that with the existing appliances 500 more lives could have been saved. But . there was no seamanship to rely on, or not enough, and the captain and officers had to look on helpless while precious minutes were flying past. It . reminds one of the. recent description of our old friend Captain Orutchley. Most of us who were here twenty years ago remember the Captain as one of the most characteristic skippers of the N.Z. Shipping Co. Capable in action, picturesque in language, with an infinite contempt for everything at sea that pretended to be a sailor and wasn’t. In a recent writing the Captain has devolved into a prolific writer of the magazine order, principally in connection with naval matters— has spoken his very direct mind about the manning of great liners. “Run by a sort of hotel syndicate, composed of the Chief Engineer, the Purser, and the Captain,” says the annoyed sailor, and observe he has, in the fineness of his irony, put the Captain last of the three. Well done, old Trunnion! ” Mr. Conrad completes the picture by calling these leviathans “a sort of Marine Ritz, proclaimed unshakable, and sent adrift with its casual population on the sea without enough boats, without enough seamen, but with a Parisian cafe and four hundred of poor devils of waiters to meet dangers which, let the engineers say what they like, lurk always amongst the waves, sent with a blind trust in mere material, light-heartedly to a most miserable, most fatuous disaster.” Nor is wireless excluded from this sweeping charge of utter mismanagement, which deals with ships not properly commanded, manned, or equipped, or even seeming to contemplate the rough troubles of the sea. It has been established by evidence that the vigilance of wireless does not extend through all the hours of the twenty-four. The operators go to bed like reasonable people on shore after closing their instrument and locking up for the night. The theory apparently is that if disasters will not confine themselves to reasonable hours they deserve to be neglected. Why, it is beyond doubt now that the operator on the “Carpathia” was within ten minutes of his bedtime. Hence if the “Titanic’s” message had been ten minutes later the adherence of this man to his fatuous system would have cost the lives of all the people in the boats. Not a soul would have lived to tell the tale of the “Titanic.” Fatuity, therefore, we see, though _ taking most prodigious toll of the ".Titanic’s” vast population by no means did its worst. Moreover, if the weather had been bad, fatuity would have still further shone in the o 1! C A T*A A ■numrap+iilal rlnn+li tttlitoli i'yi 0“** v V— V, W vxiWMiv Vivutii, vrjULJLUXi. ijj its bearing on the responsible shoulders is unpleasantly like unto murder. There were many among those set to manage the boats carrying the rescued passengers who had never had an oar in their hands in their lives— of the poor devils of

cafe waiters who had been so punctiliously provided. Some women who knew how to handle oars actually took the work out of the hands of these incapables. Add to this insufficieny of boatmen, the insufficiency of boats, and the want of powerin these days of motor engines a want criminally inexcusable—and you realise the full extent of the fatuity of the modem system of sending ships to sea. * * =»

There are many kinds of change. At one extreme there is the change of which the fear perplexes monarchs”; at the other, change is but another name for progressive development. Between the two, our Progress lies at the present moment a-thinking. We have made a mark with care and pain through good times and evil, and our success has been such that our friends have got accustomed to us as wq are. They look for our monthly appearance in the familiar form, carrying the same pages, which have made many things interesting in architecture, engineering, aviation, astronomy and invention, shipbuilding, art, science, and many things more, all known to many readers of appreciation and sympathy. Thoughtful minds have, however, been struck with the idea of change. At first it was but a sug-. gestion that the size of the page might be thought unwieldy, and this suggestion grew and grew until gradually it resolved itself into a conviction, the sort of conviction which asks questions with the air of infallibility: “Why not have a size that will go comfortably into your pocket.” Now the pocket argument is sometimes at the top of what the money market calls “The High Finance.” It is high enough at all events to inspire respect in the average business breast. In that aspect the idea seems to make appeal to us. Not that we desire to reduce the volume of the reading given to our readers. That would be unprincipled as well as inexpedient, ungenerous and unprofitable- A change, however, would undoubtedly lend itself to a re-arrangement of the matter published, under which more variety could be given to the publication without trenching on the usefulness of the departments now having attention. The new arrangement suggested to us would be to reduce the size and increase the number of pages in proportion. This would certainly favour multiplication of departments. We have considered the advisability of adding several new features. For example, to Architecture and Building on its present lines, we propose to add a special section about the home, well illustrated, so that those intending building may be kept well up to date in the numerous ideas, designs, etc., for outside appearance and inside comfort which are now so rapidly coming into vogue: The latter, we feel assured, will be of special interest to our lady readers. Another department relates to the motor industry and its developments, now very considerable. There are thousands of motorists in the Dominion to whom a section of the issue can be made intensely interesting. Frankly, on this subject of change or no change we should iiivc a lew hints and suggestions from our subscribers and readers as to what they feel on this important question. We wish to draw attention to our voting paper on page 1162 of this issue, and trust that all our readers will register their votes.