The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1887-08-06 00:00:00

THE LOSS OF THE TASTUNIA.

• The Board of Trade inquiry into the circumstances
attending the loss of this vessel was resumed on Tues-
day morning by Mr. Rothery, Q C., Wreck Commis-
sioner, and three assessors, at the Royal Courts of
Justice. Captain Hull, late of the Hydrographer's
Department of the Admiralty, was called on Monday,
and stated that he had marked off on the chart the
courses stated by the second officer to have been
steered by the Tasmania, and if these courses were
accurately steered she ought to have passed from a
mile and a third to a mile and a half to the southward
of the Monachi rocks. Mr: Hall, QC., addressed the
court on behalf of the owners, contending that the
ship was perfectly and thoroughly equipped. Mr.
' My hurgh, Q.C., addressed the court on behalf of the
officers of the vessel. He dwelt at some length on
the improbability and absurdity of Fagg's evidence,
p irticularly as • the . second officer had told
the court that he had not done anything
whatever without the knowledge of the captain.
What he would really ask the court wOuld be to
say that the course laid down by Captain Perrin was
one which would take the ship safely to the Plaina
Light. The event proved that there was a very strong
current running, which took the ship one mile and a,
half off her course. It was now known by the evi-
dence of Mr. Southwell that there was a current
' setting in from one place to another three or four
hours before the wind commenced to blow, and no
doubt if the captain had been aware of this ho would
have made such allowance for the current as would
have cleared the Monachi rocks. At the time he
went below there was very little wind, but now it had
been proved that in the Mediterranean it was well
known that the current preceded and did not follow
the wind. If Captain Perrin did not know this, and
very few sailors knew it, then he contended the com-
mander was quite right in holding on the course he
did. The disaster was entirely owing to an abnormal
set of the current, and Captain Perrin was, there-
fore, not responsible. Dr. Raikes then summed
up the case on behalf of the Board of Trade,
' and submitted that the number of Europeans -
on board the Tasmania was not sufficient to en-
sure the good working of the ship, and that confusion '
arose in consequence of none of the officers knowing
who the Lascars were that were assigned to the various
boats. He further contended that although the cora-
-1 pany's regulations were perfect so far as they could
1 be, they were not strictly adhered to on board the
Tasmania, as for instance, the rule respecting a night
order book being kept by the captain not having been
carried out. The boat drill as practised was of the
most perfurctory character possible, as it consisted in
the mustering the boat's crew in front of boats which
were not lowered, except in harbour. The way in
which the bearings were taken when abeam of Cape
Pertusado to verify the position of the ship was not
satisfactory, as a cross bearing ought to have been
taken. He confessed that he had been impressed
with the utter improbability of the second officer
taking a course of his own without the knowledge
cf the captain, particularly as he would have seen
the log the next day. However, it was possible that
there might have been a misunderstanding in tbe
matter, and the second officer might have mistaken
50 for GO, and although he reported to the captain,
who was on the break of the poop deck, that her
course was North 50 West, there was a wind blowing
at the time, and it was possible the captain did not
distinctly hear the answer. It certainly did seem
strange ta him that when within three-quarters of an
hour of the Monachi rocks, after passing which they
would have been free from all danger, the second
officer should have been left on the bridge alone '
without having received any special instructrons or
the advantage of having a chart, which showed the
danger they were approaching. With regard to the
evidence of Quartermasters Cole and Fagg, be thought
it was hardly likely that these two men would have
made a wilful misstatement, and if their evidence was
true, then it would tend to throw discredit on all the
evidence that was given by the second officer. After
the wreck the master appeared to have done all he
could, but it seemed strange that the lifeboat could not
leave the ship until four howe after stranding. He
complained of the confusion which prevailed in
launching the boats, and of those boats which did get
away not being manned by seamen who were able to
bring them back again. When ashore he complained
of the crew, such as it was, being allowed to disperse,
and the reluctance of the stewards and others to man
the lifeboat again. The Court would, no doubt, feel
sympathy with the Dinars and Seedie boys who died
from exposure, and the only question with regard to
them was whether everything was done that could be
done to protect them from the inclemency of the
weather; but as for the men who cut away the raft
and were drowned, they, being guilty of a breach of
discipline, were not entitled to much consideration.
The learned commissioner said he could not give
judgment at once, and therefore he would adjourn
the Court.