3rd February, 1835.
www
THE SURVEY OF COPPER BOTTOMED SHIPS.
Hon. W. KuswIOX-Your Excellency, at, the last meeting of Council the subject of the alteration that I maintained had occurred in
ap-
to
the system of surveying wooden vessels since the 7th April, 1884, by requiring them to dook, was introduced by me, and I inquired if any explanation could be given. The explanation the hon. the Attorney-General gave was parently satisfactory. On looking further into the subject, however, I find that what was mentioned by me at the last Council meeting was in accordance with fact, namely, that since the 7th April, 1884, the necessity for docking wooden vessels has been insisted upon by the Marine Burveyor, whereas previous that no such necessity appeared to oxist. In 1879 Ordinance No. 8 was passed, and under that Ordinance the paddle wheel boats of the Hongkong, Canton, and Macao Steamboat Company were not required to be docked for survey with a view to obtaining cer tificates until the date I have mentioned. Since then the steamers have been docked for the mero purpose of inspection and not for repair, whick, it is contended, is a hardship. At the last moot- ing allusion was made by the Attorney-Gen- eral to the White Cloud as having come here in 1881. That vessel was running between Hongkong and Macso during the whole of 1880 and 1881. Allusion was also made to the Kiung-i | chow and Pingon. Both of these were screw
steamers and necessarily had thoir fittings under i water. Screw steamers, whether of wood ori iron, necessarily must dock at loast once year, but it is otherwise with paddle steamors which have their fittings above water where they can be seen. I under stand, also, it is customary in Her Majesty's navy for wooden vessels which are coppered to be docked once in three years, and it is cer- tainly considered inadvisable that wooden vessela should be docked more frequently than that. I have here a return of the dockings of the steamers Kiukiang and White Cloud from the passing of Ordinance 8 of 1879 until the 7th April, 1884, the date upon which docking for inspection only was insisted upon. The Kiu- kiang in the year 1880 was not docked. In July, 1881 (ber previous docking having taken place in June, 1879), was docked for repairs on bottom. In October, 1882, was docked for re- metalling. In the year 1883 was not docked. The White Cloud, in May, 1880, was docked at Aberdeen for the purpose of patching metal. She was docked without the know- ledge of the Government Marine Surveyor, who did not see her. In February, 1881 (Cap. tain Benning reports), she was survoyed by Mr. Sleeman alongside the Company's wharf, and certificate granted for the following year, but nothing was said about docking. In the following month (March), however, the Company found it necessary to dock the steamer for remetalling. In the year 1882 she did not dock-the Attorrey. General states "because of tho pressure of work and for the convenience of the Company," but Captain Benning reports on 3rd April, 1882, laid up with loose piston rod at Kowloon Dock until 7th, but was not asked to dock by Mr. Brewer, who surveyed us, and did not dock." In March, 1883, was docked for new keelsons, ke.. and for remetalling, which, however, would have been deferred until the following year (1884) had it been known that the vessel would then bave been compelled to dock for inspection. The Company feel that the rule requiring a vessel to dock is unnecessary and a hardship. If it were necessary they would not object, but the docking simply for survey is not necessary. In view of there being a possible difference of opin- ion as to the reading of the Ordinance on the subject I have brought forward a resolution, but I maintain the certificate could be given without the necessity of docking, and I do not think docking should be called for. The resolution I propose is:-"That it is desirable to amend the Merchant Shipping Consolidation Ordinance, 1879, by adding immediately after the words '(1) That the hull of the ship is sufficient for the ser- vice intended and in good condition' (section V. sub-section 8 clause (a) paragraph I.), the words following, that is to say, 'provided that such Government Surveyor shall declare that the bull of any wooden paddle-wheeled river steamer is sufficient for the service intended and in good condition without requiring such river steamer to be docked, if it be reasonably proved to him that such river steamer has been re-metalled
--
withi
within the threo yours immediately precoding the date of survey and that she has not grounded since the last survey.'"
Hon. P. RYBIYour Excellency, I beg to second the resolution proposed by my hou. friend opposite. I must say it seems inexplicable to me why, after so many years, suddenly these gentlemen who are connected with the Harbour Master's department and the Marine Survey de- partment should come down on these steamers. There is something behind it, I am confident. What do they mean by it--what do they mean? They know these shipslas well as any ships in the harbour. They say they cannot be examined by divers. That is contrary to the opinion of every Naval officer in port with the exception of the gentleman who acts as Harbour Master at present. How he can say so when in the Navy they always employdivers I do not understand. I don't believe he can ever have been in a ship that has been surveyed. I have it on the highest naval authority that these ships lying light can be taken into clear water, into 12 ft. of water, and a diver can walk round them in proper div- ing dress and see if there is a nail loose; and get this gentleman writes to the Government to say that our suggestion that divers should ex- amine the bottom is a mere quibble. How any gentleman can give himself away in that manner I cannot understand. I think these vessele, being wooden vessels copper bottomed, can be examined quite well in the harbour and the diver can bring up a report if there is anything wrong as easily as I can look up at this ceiling and tell whether there is a spot on it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-Sir, I wish be- fore this motion is put to the Council, to say one or two words with reference to it, and more particularly with reference to the observations made by my hon. friend who has moved the resolution upon the answer which was given to his question at the last meeting of Council. I stated then, I think-at all events I am sure it must have been well understood by the Council-that I was spoaking from the in- !formation which had been obtained from the proper authority as to the facts. The statement I made was strictly in accordance with the termus in which the information was given, and al- though I must admit there at first sight seems to be some discrepancy between the facts stated. by me in answer to my hon, friend's question and the facts which he is now in possession, of and which he has detailed to us, I think it will be found when they are carefully compared that a good deal turna on the distinction which I think is drawn now-but which was not drawn in the! question in the form in which it was put--the dis- finction between special docking for the purpose of examination and dooking at such times as would have afforded, and perhaps did afford faci- lities for examination. It seems to me, as far se I can gather-of course I cannot speak scou- rately on the point without the figures before me-but it appears from the statement of the hon. member that these ships were dooked at. the times stated in the answer given at the last meeting, but what seems to bo doubtful is whether they were specially re- quired to be docked for the particular purpose of survey or whether the Marine Surveyor did not content himself with the fact that they had been docked as sufficient compliance with the require- ments of the Ordinance. I take it the explana- tion of the discrepancy between his facts and ours will be found in that practice; but I have no doubt careful inquiries will be made on that point and to ascertain how matters precisely stand, and a report will be called for. Now with re gard to the resolution, I think there is sozne- thing to be said on the other side of the question. The practice is now, whatever it may have former- ly been, in accordance with the requirements of the law. The law is in the same terms as the Merchant Shipping Act, under which surveys of this kind are conducted in England. The manner in which those surveys are to be carried out has been prescribed with a great deal of care and a great deal of detail by the Board of Trade in! their regulations, and among other regulations which they lay down for Surveyors in carrying : out these surveys is this, which I read from the regulations thoinselres:-"The surveyors before granting a declaration for twelve months, shall be careful to make an examination of the out- side of the ship in a dry dock, timbers, braces, bolts, etc. Before surveyors pass the hull of a vessel they should see it is fit to go into water." Now those regalations apply to all ships, with-
222
O