Battling with waves and lawyers : $b a genuine history of perils of the deep and an authentic record of the most important shipping case ever dealt with in the supreme courts of Australasia
History
Battling with waves and lawyers : $b a genuine history of perils of the deep and an authentic record of the most important shipping case ever dealt with in the supreme courts of Australasia
Alert (Ship : 1877-1893); Liability for marine accidents; Navigation -- Australia -- History; Shipwrecks -- Australia -- Victoria
Factory and Workshop
Operatives 5,270,835 4,047 405
Railway Servants 381,626 4,717 472
Miners 718,747 10,333 1,033
Seamen 188,391 21,241 2,172
Further, Mr. Wilson estimates that one seventh of the lives lost
amongst seamen is due to causes which could not easily be prevented,
and that the remainder—18,206 for ten years, or 1862 annually—are
lost through preventable causes such as under-manning, incompetent
seamen, insufficient stability, want of proper shifting boards,
over insurance, reckless navigation, superficial surveying and
over loading. The foregoing list, be it remembered, is not ancient
history, but is made up to date, so to speak, and during a time when
the “Plimsol Shipping Act” was supposed to be in full swing!
It is a common saying that, owing to the great improvements made in
connection with modern shipping, the mortality amongst seamen is
considerably less now than it was in former years, but the stern
logic of facts shows that instead of this being the case, the loss
of life is increasing at a fearful rate. On looking back a bit I
find, from a perusal of the “British Wreck Register,” that during
the thirty years preceding Mr. Wilson’s table (namely 1853 to
1883) there were 21,651 seamen lost by shipwreck, or an average of
721 annually. In other words, the annual loss during the past ten
years—1883 to 1893—has been three times as great as the annual loss
during the previous thirty years. Surely this is a startling piece
of information, and one well calculated to make a person ask, Is
this state of matters due to modern improvements, or is it in spite
of them? Speaking as one who has had many years’ experience as a
seaman, I have no hesitation in saying that six out of every ten
disasters which overtake ships are caused by the foolish practice of
hurrying vessels out of port in an unfit condition. Many a time have
I seen, and been in, ships sent away from Melbourne and elsewhere
with hundreds of tons of cargo on deck. In some instances this cargo
was intended to remain on deck, and in others it had to be put below
after the ship got to sea. Indeed, in one notable case a royal
mail steamer actually took with her, from Melbourne, a number of
stevedores men, or lumpers, for the express purpose of stowing the
cargo whilst the vessel was on her way to Adelaide. Every now and
then the community is startled with the account of some appalling
shipping disaster, and, as a rule, the credit of such is given to
the Creator by announcing them as “acts of Providence.” In sober
truth they are mostly “acts of improvidence,” the blame resting
solely with foolish, short-sighted man. A large steamer will come
into port to-day, discharge and load cargo all night, and sail next
morning on a fresh voyage. “Despatch in port” this is called, but too
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account