68 
THE CHEMIST AND DEUGGIST OF AUSTEALASIA. 
Apr. 1, 1886. 
lonial Pharmaceutical Conference to be held in Melbourne 
next October, to afford ojpportunity for “ friendly interchange 
of opinions” — thus not only expressing the same sentiments 
of the council in Sydney, but actually quoting some of the 
identical words appearing in the circular issued by the New 
South Wales Society. 
Nevertheless we hope that the New South Wales Society 
will bury any apparent slight they have received, and render 
signal aid in promoting the good cause. This they are quite 
capable of doing, and will always have the credit of initiating 
the scheme. We would like to see the existence of har- 
monious and amicable feeling all round, in view of the 
common benefits that would be derivable from the establish- 
ment of an Intercolonial Pharmaceutical Conference. It is 
desirable that South Australia, Queensland, New Zealand, 
and the other colonies will overcome the evident reluctance 
they have evinced in respect to the proposed conference, and 
that they will join hands with the two societies that have 
taken up the matter, and thus promote the common weal of 
pharmacists throughout Australasia. 
THE MANAPOURI DISASTER. 
A painful sensation has been caused throughout the colonies 
by the distressing accident which occurred on board the 
Manapouri,” on its voyage southward from Auckland, 
whereby several men lost their lives. It is fortunate that a 
general panic did not prevail or the consequences might have 
been much more disastrous than they were. The officers were 
able to maintain discipline and order among st both crew and 
passengers ; and yet it is a pity that such a misconception 
arose as to the real state of affairs. In all the newspapers it 
was reported that there was fire on hoard, whereas the truth 
was that a jar of strong nitric acid had got broken from some 
unknown cause. Naturally the fumes of that corrosive acid, 
when it leaked, caused much distress to all who came near it. 
The captain and his men, however, thought that the white 
fumes were sMohe, and they took it for granted that a fire had 
broken out on the vessel. The men who were sent down the 
hatch to find the source of the supposed fire, had to inhale the 
obnoxious and irritating fumes for about one hour, resulting 
in such mischief to the lungs that several of the poor fellows 
sacrificed their lives. Had wet towels been tied round their 
mcmths and nostrils, the injury to the pulmonary passages 
would have been materially diminished, and possibly no 
fatality would have occurred at all. 
We publish in our correspondence columns, a letter from a 
chemist who we believe was present at the inquest. From that 
communication it will be seen that the jar of acid was said to 
be infiames when taken out of the hold ; indeed, Mr. Hislop, 
the fourth officer, in his evidence before the coroner, stated 
that he “ saw the case of acid brought out of the hold in 
flames.” Further, that the smell of the “ burning acid” (.s-?c.) 
was most objectionable. He also spoke of the “ flames having 
been extinguished.” Now this is utterly impossible ; the acid 
itself is incombustible, and although it has a destructive action 
upon vegetable tissue, it could not set fire to the sawdust, nor 
case with which the jar was surrounded. It is a recognised 
chemical experiment that when red hot charcoal is drox^ped 
into the strongest nitric acid, x^reviously heated, the charcoal 
bursts into flame. Nitrous vapours are then given off from 
the decomposed acid, and the oxygen simultaneously liberated 
sux^ports the combustion of the red-hot x^^i’ticles of carbon. 
But when it is remembered that only an experienced manipu- 
lator can succeed with this experiment, and when the nature 
of the spontaneous firing is realised, it can readily be under- 
stood that there is no similarity in the two cases. Such 
conditions as detailed above, could not obtain in the case of 
the acid or its packing, as found in the ship’s consignment. 
The erroneous description is one of those common instances of 
niisconcex^tion and exaggeration that arise in the minds of 
those who are stricken with fear, like the terrible tales told 
in respect to the mythical sea serpent. 
Another evidence of gross ignorance in this lamentable 
occurrence is that there was considerable doubt entertained as 
to whether it was sulphuric acid (oil of vitirol) or nitric acid. 
It seems incredible that intelligent persons such as would be 
on board amongst the passengers, should not be aware that oil 
of vitriol does not fume at all, either se or in contact with 
organic matter. But it was even reported in the daily press, 
that a medical man who was on board, thought it was acetic 
acid. He is not to be commended for his chemical knowledge. 
As to the responsibility of the shixqjers, who were censured by 
the jury at the enquiry into the circumstances of the accident, 
we do not think any blame rests ux>on their shoulders. Messrs. 
Elliott Brothers, of Sydney (the firm of druggists who shipped 
the acid to New Zealand), have sent us some particulars in 
response to our invitation, as to the x^i’ecautions taken by 
them. They deny culx^ability in this matter, and say that the 
five cases of nitric acid were fully marked as such, and suffi- 
ciently packed. That they further hold the comx^any’s receipt 
in which the consignment is marked as “deck cargo;” and 
that they believe the packages were carried on deck until the 
ship left Auckland, at which place four of the cases were left. 
The remaining case, therefore, which was destined for Christ- 
church, and which “ came togrief,” must have been placed in 
the hold in a careless manner by some of the ship’s crew or 
officers, so that the mishap which befell the unfortunate men, 
is doubtless traceable to unintentional, but culpable negligence 
on the part of the servants of the shipping company. 
At the magisterial examination some incongruities came to 
light. The commander of the ship (Cax^t. Logan) ^stated that 
in shipx^ing “ acid ” he always takes care that such x^arcels are 
marked “ specially dangerous.” Yet he acknowledges that he 
was entirely ignorant of the acid being on board. He further 
stated that such goods (according to the regulations of the 
Shipping Act) had to be kex^t on deck, and, on further exami- 
nation, said that it was the first officer’s duty to supervise 
where it was to be put, and the third officer’s duty to put it in 
the hold. 
Both the coroner and the jury expressed their opinion that 
the shippers should be prosecuted. We hope such will not be 
done. In fact, we consider such x>i'osecution would be unjust 
and unwarrantable in the face of the verdict that the “death 
was accidental, casual, and hij misfortune ; ” especially as the 
shippers seemed to have complied with the x^i’escribed rules. 
We think that the fault mainly lies in the laxity of the 
existing regulations with regard to the transport of such 
goods. 
On the other hand, the officers of the steamship “ Mana- 
vouri ” were exonerated by the jury from all blame, and that 
notwithstanding the tacit admission of lack of adequate super- 
pision on the part of the captain and his subordinates. Juries 
generally take a x^erverse view of the true aspect of affairs in 
coming to a decision. 
It is just possible, that although the x^ackages were dis- 
tinctly marked as “acid,” that they were not conspicuously 
marked. Hence it is imx^ortant that some regulation be 
adopted, in future, to have a striking label affixed to such 
dangerous articles of cargo, whereby there might be no repeti- 
tion of such calamitous events. 
One point is worthy of note, viz., that the cases were simply 
designated “ acid.” This, though the general custom, is inde- 
finite, and, we think insufficient. The name of the acid ought 
to be specified ux^on the x‘>ackage. It would be advisable to 
have x^i’oper labels in hold Ujpe affixed in a prominent place 
upon each jar, and bearing words indicative of the nature of the 
contents, and the care with which it should be handled. A 
label of this style might answer the purpose : — 
WITH GREAT CARE. 
NITRIC ACID. 
(“Aqua Fortis.”) 
CORROSIVE— POISON, 
DANGEROUS. 
THIS SIDE TO BE KEPT UP. 
Further, it ought to be made compulsory to send to the 
captain of the ship a memorandum stating the dangerous 
nature of the goods committed to his care. But, on the part 
of the company, rigid rules should be enforced on the captains 
of vessels, when shipping cargo, to see to the safe and proper 
storage on deck of corrosive liquids, such as nitric acid and oil 
of vitriol ; or inflammable substances, like benzoline and 
petroleum ; or chemicals of an explosive character, like nitro- 
glycerine, dynamite, Uthofracteur and gunpowder. 
I 
i 
