Wreck report for 'Canadian Trapper' and 'Baie St Paul', 1927

FOR OFFICIAL USE

(No. 7847.)

"CANADIAN TRAPPER" (S.S.) and

"BAIE ST. PAUL" (Bateau)

COLLISION.

CANADA SHIPPING ACTS, 1906-08.

In the matter of a formal investigation held in the Wreck Commissioner's Court, Old Customs House, Montreal, on the 30th June, 1927, into the circumstances attending the collision between the s.s. "Canadian Trapper" and the bateau "Baie st. Paul" on the 24th June, 1927, three miles from Red Island, in the River St. Lawrence.

The Court was presided over by Captain L. A. Demers, F.R.A.S., Dominion Wreck Commissioner assisted by Captain Charles Lapierre and Captain Arthur Lefebvre, as Nautical Assessors.

Mr R. T. Heneker, K.G., appeared on behalf of the master of the s.s. "Canadian Trapper"; Mr. Gregor Barelay, K.C., for the owners of the s.s. "Canadian Trapper"; Mr. F. P. Brais, K.C., for the pilot of the s.s. "Canadian Trapper"; and Mr. Edgar Gosselin for the owners of the "Baie St. Paul."

REPORT.

The "Canadian Trapper" is a steel vessel owned and operated by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine and was commanded by Captain John E. Macdonald, Canadian Certificate No. 4606. Her gross tonnage is 3,599, net tonnage 2,183, single screw, speed nine knots, carrying 34 of a crew, including three certificated deck officers and three engineers. At the time of the casualty she was hound from Antwerp to Montreal with a general cargo.

When at about three miles west of Red Island a green light was seen half a point on the port bow at about 200 feet away, a hard-to-port helm was ordered simultaneously with a full speed astern order, which was given by the pilot, who was and had stationed himself on the port side whilst the third officer was on the starboard side of the bridge. Notwithstanding those orders and their immediate execution an impact took place. At the time of the casualty, about 11.08 p.m., a breeze which is said to have been of force four, including the increase made by the "Canadian Trapper's" onward advance, was blowing. The wind had been variable from strong to light. The "Canadian Trapper" was going at her full speed plus a three-knot flood tide, which carried her over the ground at about 12 knots. It is stated that the night was clear, everything in the way of lights being fully and plainly visible. A lookout had been duly stationed on the forecastle head. The shock was slight, barely felt, the "Canadian Trapper" returning to where the vessel that had been struck, which was seen to be a bateau, lay, and Look the two men forming the crew who had been picked up by the boat of a bateau, which was in close proximity to the "Baie St. Paul," which by that time was submerged.

"BAIE ST. PAUL."

The bateau "Baie st. Paul" is a wooden vessel, built 18 years ago, carrying but two men, her propelling power was one jib, a large foresail and a smaller sail on the after mast, her rig being between a yawl and a schooner, She was light, having neither eargo nor ballast.

The witnesses aver that there was a clam, therefore, with the eddies encountered, she was swinging some points. One of the men stood at the wheel and supposedly remained at the wheel till shortly before the impact, claiming that the bateau was not making any way through the water. Her sails were old and rather dark. The jib had been two years in service and was lighter in colour. Without pumping she would make one foot of water in 24 hours, averred the master, whilst his associate said about six to eight inches. The side lights were at their respective places, and had been in position since 8.30. They were supposedly of the regulation size, corrugated glass, but without a chimney or globe within.

When the "Canadian Trapper" came within apprehensive or dangerous proximity, Lavoie, the master asserts that he took a white lantern and waved it frantically from side to side and opposite the foresail. When at a distance such that a collision was inevitable he rested the lantern on deck. They positively asserted that the green light was clean and in good condition, and burning brightly. They were picked up by the boat of the bateau "St. Rita."

The foregoing are the principal factors upon which the Court draws the summary and judgment.

SUMMARY.

The master of the "Canadian Trapper" was in his room. The noise made by the ringing of the telegraph brought him on the deck upon which his room is situated; seeing the bateau on his port side he went on the bridge.

The master was perfectly justified in taking a rest, having a Branch Pilot and a Third Officer holding a Certificate, on duty, the night being clear, the wind light, and in a neighbourhood where there was ample sea room. So that no reflection can be cast against him for his absence from the bridge. What was done subsequently under his direction was quite proper and in order.

The lookout had reported verbally first a white light, then a green light. He received an answer from the bridge. The third officer alleges that he saw something indistinct and took the glasses from the box. Both the pilot and third officer saw distinctly the green light on their port bow. From that admission the conclusion can be drawn that the light was in position and lighted. No allusion was made inferring that it was weak in visibility. This being the case, it does seem exceedingly strange that the three men on duty supposedly keeping a look out failed to see the green light or white light; but especially the green only, when they were in a position where a collision was inevitable.

Were they keeping a look out simply or a proper look out as is called for by Article 29?

Admitting the third officer's assumption that the bateau had way through the water, as she was coming almost at right angles to the steamer from port to starboard, with booms guyed well out, she offered and presented against the horizon a larger area of darker line which should have been seen sooner, quicker, earlier from his starboard station than if she had been still in the water, as it is alleged from the bateau witnesses, as in that position, which was practically ahead, offering her beam to the oncoming steamer her sails in the position as stated would offer a lesser area of darkened surface and the range of visibility would necessarily have been lessened; but, even so, accepting the hitter situation, had there been a proper look out the "Baie St. Paul" should have been detected timely, at a greater distance titan 200 feet, giving ample time to avoid her. Whilst to all appearances an officer or lookout may be pacing the deck, the bridge or the forecastle head, this does not exactly prove that his mind, his gaze, is intent and alert to any possibilities or emergencies which may arise or may be expected to arise when traversing frequented waters, that he is awake to his duties for the moment. In this instance it is evident that the three men then on duty for some unaccountable reason were not alert, in fact, were not, keeping a proper look out.

It may be that during the swinging of the bateau under the influence of the current and variable light airs, that her green light would be hidden from view, appear and disappear. As it is said that she was swinging four points, from NE to N, this may be a reason, and is, possibly, a reason that it was not perceived sooner and earlier. The Court is ready to grant this as a possibility. Nevertheless, on such a clear night had a proper, keen look out been kept the shadow of the sails could have been perceived timely to allow a movement to pass either astern or ahead.

The third officer says that the bateau had headway. If such were the case they should have seen her in sufficient time to permit a hard-to-starboard helm and pass under her stern. If she had headway on a hard-to-port helm was a wrong movement; but excusable under the circumstances as it was performed in the agony of collision. It is doubtful if the full speed astern had any effect in helping the rudder, as 200 feet was undoubtedly covered before the engineer had, time to obey the order from the bridge.

The pilot, who was standing on the port side, should have been the first one to note the presence of the bateau before the green light was reported. Usually the watchers on the bridge, especially in clear weather as stated, are the first to notice any object, and a report from the forecastle head confirms their discovery; but in this instance the man stationed at the knightheads was the first to see and report. This is evidence that, though the pilot and third officer were supposedly awake, sober, and keeping a look out, they were not keeping a proper look out. The pilot especially should have been on the qui vive and constantly scanning the surroundings ahead and each side, knowing that in those waters small vessels, schooners, bateaux, are frequently met. A proper sharp look out was necessary if there was sufficient wind to have any force on sails, keener than in a calm, absolute calm, when such boats are stationary.

The shock or impact, no matter how weakly given, was enough to start a leak in such an old boat. and the bow wave created on the rapid advance of the "Canadian Trapper" reached the bateau an appreciable interval before the contact occurred and canted the bateau in such a manner as to cause a glancing blow which, however, was strong enough to open up seams, causing the bateau's submersion before or about the time the stern of the steamer cleared her.

The lookout's statement is to the effect that on the starboard bow lie also saw a white light being waved. This is corroborated by the witnesses from the bateau.

Marsden, page 464, says "If a ship is proved to have been negligent in not keeping a proper look out she will be held answerable for all the reasonable consequences of her negligence. Though the ship has no lights it is negligence not to see and avoid her on a clear night."

This appears formal, definite. In this instance the bateau had a green light exhibited. This is not denied. Had she placed that light only at the time when perceived an ordinary lookcut would have detected the placing of it in the rigging. Hence, the evidence of the bateau must be accepted that it was in position or placed sometime before the "Canadian Trapper" was seen.

"BAIE ST. PAUL."

With reference to this vessel, the summary must necessarily be brief in view of the analysis of the evidence of the "Canadian Trapper."

Sailing ships have been found in default in many cases for not having maintained their rights and privileges when a collision with another ship, even a steamer, was imminent. The Court is of opinion that in this case the bateau had little option, if any, to starboard her wheel to the oncoming vessel. Whilst it is surmised that the bateau, on account of her age, was ripe and tender, it does not relieve the "Canadian Trapper" from the responsibility of causing her submersion. It is not for this Court to assess the value or damage.

Hence, in view of the above comments and observations, the following judgment is rendered:-

JUDGMENT.

The Court, having carefully reviewed and weighed the evidence adduced, finds that the collision was due to an indifferent look out on the part of Pilot Rodrigue Lachane and Third Officer J. S. Duffield, and therefore finds them in default, and fines the Pilot, Rodrigue Lachance, the maximum sum of Four Hundred ($400,00) Dollars, to be paid in four equal monthly instalments of One Hundred Dollars each on the first of August, first of September, first of October and first of November, 1927.

With respect to the third officer, J. S. Duffield, his certificate, which has been remitted to him, must be returned to the Court. His Board of Trade Certificate No. 0,016,428, is suspended for a period of one month from the date it is received by the Court, for which he will receive acknowledgment.

The master, Captain J. E. Macdonald, is exonerated.

Read in open Court at Ottawa this 19th day of July, 1927.

(Sgd.) L. A. DEMERS,

Dominion Wreck Commissioner.

(Sgd.) CHARLES LAPIERRE.

(Sgd.) ARTHUR LEFEBVRE.

Nautical Assessors.

The following questions were read and submitted for and on behan of the Department of Marine, for the opinion of the Court, at the conclusion of the hearing of evidence:-

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS BY THE COURT.

(Sgd.) L. A. DEMERS,

Dominion Wreck Commissioner.

(Issued by the Board of Trade in London

on the 10th day of September, 1927.)

LONDON:

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.

To be purchased directly from H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE at the following addresses:

Adastral House, Kingsway, London, W.C.2.; 120, George Street, Edinburgh;

York Street, Manchester; 1, St. Andrew's Crescent, Cardiff;

15, Donegall Square West, Belfast;

or through any Bookseller.

1927

Price 3d. Net.