(No. 237.)
"C. M. PALMER," (S.S.), and "LUDWORTH," (S.S.)
The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.
IN the matter of the formal investigation held at Westminster, on the 6th, 7th,
and 8th March 1878, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted
by Commander FORSTER, R.N., and Captain PARFITT, as Assessors, into the
circumstances attending the loss of the steamship "C. M. PALMER," of Newcastle,
through collision with the steamship "LUDWORTH," of London, near the Bawdsey
Buoy, off Harwich, on the 17th February 1878.
Report of Court.
The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the
above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, or the reasons stated in the annexed
judgment, that the loss of the said ship "C. M. Palmer" was due to the Wrongful
acts and defaults of Robert Meldrum, the master of the said ship "Ludworth," in
navigating his ship at too great a rate of speed on the morning of the said 17th
day of February, the weather being thick and foggy, so that when the "C. M.
Palmer" was discovered it was not possible to avoid her.
The Court therefore suspends the certificate of the said Robert Meldrum for six
months.
The Court makes no order as to costs.
Dated the 8th day of March 1878.
(Signed)H. C. ROTHERY,
Wreck Commissioner.
We concur in the above report.
(Signed)GEORGE H. FORSTER,Assessors.
"WM. PARFITT,
Judgment.
Mr. Howard Smith, Mr. Clarkson, Mr. Webster, and Mr. Nelson stated that they had
no further witnesses to call.
Mr. Clarkson was then heard on behalf of the owners and the master of the "C. M.
Palmer."
Mr. Nelson stated that his learned friend Mr. Webster, who represented the
owners of the "Ludworth," would address the Court on behalf of the master.
Mr. Webster was heard accordingly.
Mr. Howard Smith was then heard on the part of the Board of Trade.
The Commissioner.-The object of the present inquiry is to ascertain the
circumstances attending the collision between the two steam vessels the "C. M.
Palmer" and the "Ludworth," on the morning of the 17th of February last off
Harwich.
The "C. M. Palmer" was a vessel of 1,010 tons gross and 628 tons net register,
and was fitted with two engines of 180 horse-power. She was built at Jarrow in
the year 1870, was lengthened in 1872, and at the time of the casualty which
forms the subject of this inquiry she belonged to the Tyne Shipping Company
(Limited), of Newcastle-on-Tyne, Mr. John Ormston, of Musgrove House, Gateshead,
being the managing owner. She left Newcastle at about 11 a.m. of the 16th
February last, bound for London, with a crew of 22 hands all told, and having on
board from 30 to 40 passengers, and a cargo of about 600 tons. At that time she
drew about 11 feet 6 forward and about 16 feet 6 aft, but on getting into salt
water she would necessarily rise some three to four inches. She had six boats,
two lifeboats on the saloon deck, and four quarter boats, two on each side. She
seems to have been well fitted with pumps, compasses, and everything necessary
for the performance of the voyage.
At 8 a.m. of the 17th she was off Southwold. Up to that time she had been in
charge of the chief officer, but the captain then came on deck to relieve him,
the second officer going on the bridge. At this time the wind was from about
south-west, the sea was smooth, it was about quarter flood, and the vessel we
are told was going full speed, which was estimated to be about 11 knots an hour
through the Water. Her course by steering compass was south-west, but as that
compass had a deviation of about half a point, her course magnetic he told us
was south-west half south. At about 9 a.m. they had arrived off Aldborough Ness
Buoy, when the weather becoming hazy, the captain went on to the upper bridge,
and took charge of the telegraph; a man was also placed on the look-out forward,
and an extra man at the wheel. All hands were then called to get the anchor
ready for letting go in case of need, and the vessel's course was altered a
quarter of a point to the south, making it by the steering compass south-west a
quarter south, the magnetic course being south-west three quarters south. At
9.15., when they were about half-way between Aldborough Ness Buoy and the
Shipwash Lightship, the fog thickened, and thereupon orders were given to "stand
by" to "ease her" and to "stop her;" but shortly afterwards the engines were
again set on easy ahead, and from that time until immediately before the
collision the vessel, according to the evidence of all on board, was going at a
very easy speed, sometimes stopping, sometimes going ahead easy; the second
mate, who had charge of the steam whistle, sounding it, as he has told us, two
or three times every minute. At 9.45 they were abreast of the Shipwash Lightship
and heard the fog-horn; and shortly afterwards, while still on the same course,
namely south-west three quarters south, the north-east Bawdsey Buoy was observed
about half a point on the port bow, distant from 90 to 100 yards. The engines
were immediately stopped, and the helm was ordered to be put to starboard for
the purpose of getting into the shipway, the fairway channel between the Bawdsey
and Shipwash Sands. The engines were then turned ahead easy, and she was going
about a couple of knots through the water when a vessel, which afterwards proved
to be the "Ludworth," was observed a point and a half upon the "C. M. Palmer's"
starboard bow, at a distance we are told of about 200 yards. Orders were
immediately given to hard a-starboard the helm, and to reverse the engines full
speed, but before those measures could produce any effect, so short was the
interval of time, the two vessels came together, the "Ludworth's" stem striking
the "C. M. Palmer" on the starboard side, just forward of the bridge. Orders
were immediately given by the master to get the boats out, but owing to the
confusion on board arising from their having a number of passengers, who it
would seem made a rush for the quarter boats on the starboard side, it was found
impossible to launch them so expeditiously as might otherwise have been done.
The fore-quarter boat on the starboard side was however got over the ship's
side, but unfortunately one of the fall tackles was let go, and she was swamped.
The "C. M. Palmer" was still going astern, for owing to the communication
between the bridge and the engine-room having become deranged by the collision,
the captain had been unable to communicate his orders to the engine-room to stop
the engines; but the chief officer, hearing the captain give orders to stop the
engines, conveyed the order by word of mouth down the engine-room skylight, and
the engines were then stopped. On attempting to launch the after boat upon the
starboard quarter a rush was made by the passengers, and of course great delay
occurred before they could get the male passengers out, and put the women and
children in. In the meantime the "Ludworth," which after the collision had at
first backed clear of the "C. M. Palmer," had returned, and some of the men
rushed forward and got up over her bows. In six or seven minutes, however, from
the time of the collision, and before it was possible to get out any of the
other boats, the "C. M. Palmer" sank, upsetting the quarter boat, which was
alongside, with a number of passengers in her. By that time, however, the
"Ludworth" had lowered her two boats, and in the result all the crew and the
passengers were saved, with the exception of five of the crew and about nine
passengers.
The case of the "Ludworth" is as follows. She was a vessel of 447 tons gross and
304 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 70 horse-power. She was
built at Whiteinch in the county of Lanark in 1866, and at the time of the
accident she was the property of Mr. William Green and Mr. J. Holland, Mr. John
Patton, junior, of 3, White Lion Court, Cornhill, being the managing owner. She
left London for Hartlepool on the morning of the 17th of February last, at 15
minutes after midnight, in ballast, and having on board a crew of 14 hands, and
being well fitted in every respect for the voyage. She had three boats, and the
requisite equipments for a vessel of her character. She proceeded down the
river, and according to the log-book, passed Gravesend at 2.40 a.m., and having
discharged her pilot she set her foresail and proceeded at full speed. At 3.45
she passed the Nore Lightship, and at 4.30 she set her square sail. After this,
little reliance can be placed on the entries in the log-books, either the ship's
log-book or the engineer's log-book, for it is quite apparent that alterations
have been made in them, which would deprive them of all authority as containing
a statement of facts made recenti facto. For instance, we find that the time at
which she is stated to have passed the Middle Swin is given in both log-books at
5.25; but in both log-books those figures are written on erasures. Again, in the
engineer's log-book, she is stated to have passed the Sunk Lightship at 7 a.m.,
but there is an erasure after the seven, showing apparently that the first entry
made out that she passed the Sunk at some minutes after seven, but how many
minutes after it is not possible to say. It should be added that the engineer's
log-book was kept by the second engineer, who is a son of the master, which
greatly adds to the suspicion arising from the correspondence between the
alterations made in the two log-books. The Court is therefore quite unable to
place any reliance upon the entries in the log-books to show the distance run
within a given time, or the particular hour at which she passed the several
points on her course; and although during the course of the proceedings there
appeared to be some intention of relying upon the entries in the log-book to
show that this vessel must have been going very slowly for some time before the
collision, no such defence was set up by the learned counsel for the "Ludworth"
in his address to the Court.
But however this may be, at eight o'clock the first officer was called to take
the watch, and having got his breakfast he went on deck to relieve the master,
who had been on deck since leaving London. The master, it seems, went below at
about 8.25, leaving the chief officer on the bridge. At this time the vessel was
going at full speed, the wind was from the south-west, and she was heading
north-east and by north. From that time until the time of the collision the
master was frequently up on deck. I think he told us that he was up at 8.40, at
nine, at a quarter after nine, and again at half-past nine; in fact he was up
and down continually from the time the chief officer took charge, having left no
orders with that officer as to reducing the speed of the vessel, and virtually
retaining the charge in his own hands.
Now at 9 am. we are told that there were certain patches of fog seen ahead,
which seems probable, for at 9.15. the master gave orders for the sails to be
taken in. Sometime after this, but apparently not until after 9.30, the vessel's
course was altered to north-east half north. As regards, however, the more
important facts of the case, the density of the fog, the sounding of the
whistle, and the speed of the vessel, we are left, so far as the "Ludworth" is
concerned, in the greatest doubt. What we do know, however, is that just before
the collision the vessel was undoubtedly in a very thick fog, so much so that.
according to her account, it was impossible for her to see further than from 60
to 100 yards off. Now at this time the lookout man, Harrison, observed the
north-east Bawdsey Buoy, as he states, right ahead, and immediately reported it.
Whether the helm was thereupon starboarded or ported is also a matter of doubt;
the chief officer says that the helm was starboarded for the purpose of passing
to the westward of the buoy; the man at the wheel says that he ported the helm,
and that he saw the buoy on the port side as they passed it. But however this
may be, very soon after reporting the buoy the look-out man observed a vessel,
which proved to be the "C. M. Palmer," at a distance of 60 to 70 yards ahead,
and reported her. According to the chief officer, orders were thereupon
immediately given to hard a-starboard the helm and to turn the engines astern
full speed, but before they could take effect, owing to the short distance
between them, the two vessels came together, as I have already described, the
"Ludworth" striking the "C. M. Palmer" on the starboard side just forward of the
bridge, and angling more or less aft. No blame is attributed to the master or to
anyone on board of the "Ludworth" for anything that occurred after the
collision. The boats seem to have been lowered with the greatest promptness, and
by the exertions of the master and crew, and by bringing the vessel again close
to the "C. M. Palmer" a great number of lives were saved, which would otherwise
have been sacrificed. They remained on the spot until about 11 a.m., when, there
being no longer a hope of saving any more lives, the "Ludworth" steamed towards
Harwich, accompanied by another steamer called the "Henry Morton," which had
come up, and which had been requested by the master of the "Ludworth" to stand
by them, and to accompany them to Harwich, the "Ludworth" herself having been
seriously damaged on both bows in the collision.
Under these circumstances the Board of Trade have charged the masters of both
the vessels with having contributed to the loss of the "C. M. Palmer," the
damage to the "Ludworth," and the loss of 14 of the crew and passengers of the
"C. M. Palmer." And the question which the Court will have to determine is,
whether these charges have been proved.
And first, as regard the charges against the "C. M. Palmer." The first charge is
for "not keeping her proper " course on the morning of the 17th of February
1878, " whereby she was obliged to starboard her helm to avoid " Bawdsey Sand;"
the charge in effect is for having got out of her course, her proper course
being down the shipway. The nautical gentlemen, however, by whom I am assisted
on this occasion have advised me that in their opinion the master was in no way
to blame under the circumstances for having deviated as he seems to have done
from the usual course down the channel. The "C. M. Palmer" being, as there can
be no doubt she was, in a thick fog, and having consequently eased and stopped
occasionally as she was bound to do, the natural result would be that the tide,
which sets two points across the shipway to the westward, would carry her over
to the westward. Now was the master wise in allowing his vessel to be carried,
as he might naturally have expected, to the westward and out of the shipway; or
would it have been better that he should have altered his course a little to the
eastward, so as to compensate for the set of the tide towards the westward? The
assessors tell me that they consider that in acting as he did he took the proper
course. They say that this vessel, drawing as she did 16 feet 2, would pass at
that time of the tide over any part of Bawdsey Sand, the lowest depth on any
part of the sand at low water spring tides being two fathoms and a half, and the
sea being perfectly smooth; and that it was the best course for this vessel to
pursue to keep away to the westward, where there was plenty of water, and with
the chance of picking up the Bawdsey Buoy, and thus accurately fixing his
position, rather than to have kept further to the eastward, and thus run the
risk of getting on the shipwash, where there was only half to one and a half
fathoms of water for some miles. We think therefore that the first charge has
not been established.
As regards the other charges, which have been preferred against the master of
the "C. M. Palmer," we think that, on the evidence before us, there can be no
doubt that from 9.15 a.m., when the fog set in, a good look-out was kept; that
the whistle was sounded frequently, whether two or three times a minute we are
not prepared to say, but at any rate very frequently; and that the vessel was
during the whole time going at a moderate rate of speed, not exceeding from two
to three knots an hour. When the "Ludworth" was first seen a point and a half on
the starboard bow, the helm was immediately ordered to be put hard a-starboard,
and the engines to be turned full speed astern; and although it is true that the
interval was so short that these measures had not time to produce any effect, we
are at a loss to conceive what other course he could have taken. Had the vessel
that was approaching him been going at a moderate rate of speed, and had she
backed her engines at the same time, it is probable that no collision would have
taken place; or if it had taken place, that it would certainly not have been
attended with the same sad results. On the whole, we are quite at a loss to see
what course this master could have pursued other than that which he did.
Let us now come to the case of the "Ludworth." There is, as I have said, the
greatest discrepancy in the evidence given by those who were on board this
vessel, both as to the state of the weather and as to the extent to which the
speed of the vessel was slackened, if indeed it was slackened at all. According
to the master, he ordered the speed of the vessel to be slackened at a quarter
after eight; but upon being pressed it turned out that all he had done at that
time was to inquire of the engineer at what speed the vessel was going, and on
being informed that she was making 70 revolutions, he said that that was enough,
or that that would do; but he admitted that he never ordered the engines, at
that time certainly, to be slowed, nor, according to his own evidence, was there
any the smallest reason for his doing so, seeing that according to him the
weather was then perfectly clear. Again, the master told us that at half-past
nine, when he came on deck, seeing that they were approaching a fog, he ordered
the engines to be put at half speed, but this is not at all confirmed by the
engineer, who tells us that he received no such order from the master. As to the
chief officer, he told us that he did not concern himself very much about the
speed of the vessel, and that from the time he came on deck till just before the
collision he never gave any order to the engine-room either to slacken or to
slow. And now let us see what the chief engineer has to say on the subject, for
the engines were under his charge, and if they were slowed or stopped he at any
rate would know. He told us that he came on duty at 8 o'clock, and that finding
that the engines were making only 70 revolutions, whereas full speed would be
nearer 80 revolutions, he called to the fireman to get more steam up; that the
captain hearing him, asked him how many revolutions she was making, and on his
telling him the captain said she was going fast enough. He then told us that
without any orders from either the master or first officer, but solely upon his
own authority he reduced the speed of the engines from 70 revolutions to 60
revolutions. Why, we are utterly unable to understand, for, according to the
evidence, there was no fog at 8.15 and no reason why the vessel should not have
been going at full speed. But whatever the speed of the engines was, whether 60
or 70 revolutions a minute, that speed was we are told kept up until about 9.30,
when the chief engineer tells us that hearing the whistle and learning from a
fireman, whom he sent on deck to see, that there was a fog coming on, he slacked
the engines down to half speed, or about 40 revolutions; but this again was done
without any order from either the master or the chief officer, but merely on his
own authority, and on what he thought to be the right and proper course to be
followed. He says, too, that it was after he had slowed the engines down to half
speed, that the captain asked him again how they were going, and on his telling
him he expressed himself satisfied. And be tells us that he continued her at
half speed ahead, which it was admitted would give her a speed through the water
of from six to seven knots an hour, until 9.40, when he received the order "full
speed astern." And yet he tells us that during all this time and until he
received the order full speed astern, the telegraph indicated full speed ahead.
It is extremely difficult to reconcile the evidence given by the witnesses from
the "Ludworth" as to the speed of that vessel; but the purport of it is, as I
have stated, and the conclusion to which we have come is, that the speed of the
"Ludworth" was kept up until just before the collision, when the order was given
to put the engines astern full speed, but too late then to produce any effect;
not, indeed, that I mean to say that they were kept up at full speed, but that
whatever the speed was at a quarter after eight, that speed was substantially
kept up till 9.30, and that if the speed after that time was reduced to half
speed it was on the authority of the chief engineer alone, and without any
orders either from the master or the chief officer, and that at any rate she
must have been going from six to seven knots at the least when she first sighted
the "C. M. Palmer."
And now as to what was the state of the weather during this time; and upon this
point we think that the evidence of the look-out man is that upon which most
reliance can be placed. Harrison, the look-out man, told us that he went on deck
at 8 o'clock, that at that time it was fine, but that at 9 o'clock it began to
get foggy; he said that the wind was fair, but it became very foggy before the
collision. We think, therefore, that this evidence of Harrison, who was on the
look-out, and whose special attention would be called to what the state of the
atmosphere was, must be accepted on this point, even if there was any reliable
evidence to the contrary, which we do not think there is; and that we must hold
that for some time before the collision this vessel was in a thick, I may almost
say a very thick, fog.
Now the question which we have to consider is, whether this vessel was, under
these circumstances, justified in going at this speed, a speed which is stated,
even in the log-book, to have been six knots an hour, and which, according to
the chief engineer, and according to the chief officer was maintained up to the
time of the "C. M. Palmer" being sighted, at a distance of some 60 or 70 yards
ahead, and when it was too late to avoid a collision. The chief officer has
stated that if he had been the master of the ship he would not have allowed her
to go at the speed at which she was; and the master himself has admitted that if
he had known that the "C. M. Palmer" was in the thick fog which they were
approaching he certainly should not have entered it at that speed. His excuse
was that he thought it was only a "temporary" patch of fog, as he called it, by
which, I presume, he meant a local fog, and that the ship would soon pass
through it, as it had already done several other patches the same morning. He
chose to take the chance of there being no vessel in the way, but unfortunately
for him the "C. M. Palmer" was there, and he ran her down. We think that, on the
master's own admission, the "Ludworth" had no right to be going at the speed at
which she was, and that she is therefore to blame for this collision.
As regards the whistle, for that is one of the charges preferred against the
master of the "Ludworth," the evidence is not very satisfactory as to when or
how often it was sounded before the collision. No doubt it was sounded
immediately before the collision, because it was that we are told that brought
the master up, but when it was sounded before that time, or how many times, we
are left in the same state of uncertainty as to other facts deposed to by those
from the "Ludworth." One fact, however, is certain, that for some time before
the "C. M. Palmer" was sighted the chief officer was going from one side of the
ship to the other, getting into the boat and then returning to the other side of
the ship, looking out for the Bawdsey Buoy, which had been reported, and during
all this time it is clear that he could not have been sounding the whistle. That
the whistle was not sounded very frequently before that is also clear, for the
engineer tells us he reduced the speed of the engines to half speed because he
heard the whistle sounded; and that was not until after 9.30., the collision
occurring according to him at 9.40. How long before the Bawdsey Buoy was
reported the whistle had been sounded we are not able to say. It must, however,
be remembered that this vessel was going at least at between six and seven knots
an hour, and the "C. M. Palmer" we will suppose was going from two to three
knots, that would give something like from nine to ten knots an hour as the
speed at which these vessels were approaching one another; at this rate they
would get over a mile in about six minutes. If then the whistle of the
"Ludworth" had not been sounded for six minutes before they sighted one another
they would then have been about a mile apart, which might account for the "C. M.
Palmer" not hearing the "Ludworth's" whistle. On the other hand, the wind was
from south-west, and therefore against the "Ludworth" hearing the "C. M.
Palmer's" whistle. But however this may be, it is not for not sounding the
whistle oftener that we are disposed to blame the master, for the whistle was
under the control of the chief officer.
As regards the look-out however, it is admitted that he was not placed on the
look-out either by the master or the chief officer; but the look-out man told us
that after he had assisted to take in the sails he placed himself there; for
this we think both the master and the chief officer were to blame. Going at the
speed at which the vessel was, and in such weather, it was their bounden duty to
have had a good look-out, and not to have left him to place himself there, but
to have placed him there, and to have seen that he was there. At the same time
it must be remembered that the look-out man was stationed on the topgallant,
forecastle for some time before the collision, and that he saw the vessel as
soon as she could have been seen in that weather, and reported her; and that,
consequently, the collision was not in our opinion due to the want of a good
look-out.
The Court, therefore, having come to the conclusion that this collision was due
entirely to the great speed at which the "Ludworth" was going, the question is
whether the master or the chief officer is to blame for it? It has been
contended by Mr. Webster that the master gave up charge of the vessel at 8.25 to
the chief officer, but is this so? According to his own evidence he was after
that time continually on and off the deck; it was he, according to his own
account, who altered the speed of the vessel, or rather who spoke to the
engineer about it, and sanctioned the alteration in the speed of the vessel, and
he seems to have done this without any communication with the officer who was in
charge, and who seems to have been ignorant whether the vessel was going full
speed or half speed, or at what speed she was going; as he said, he did'nt pay
much attention to the speed of the vessel. When, too, the master went below at
8.25, he left no instructions with the chief officer, but kept continually
running up and down, virtually retaining the charge of the vessel in his own
hands. We had it, too, from the mate that, although he thought the vessel was
going at too great a rate of speed, he did not venture to alter the speed,
because it seems not to have been his duty to do so on board that vessel; but it
was for the master to do it. The mate told us that when he found the fog
becoming thicker he was going to send to the master to tell him so; he did not
order the speed of the vessel to be slackened, he left that for the master to
do. We think, therefore, that Mr. Webster's contention that the master had given
up the charge of the vessel to the mate is not proved; and that so far, at any
rate as regards the speed of the vessel, the master was solely responsible. We
have been told that this master has been for 45 years at sea, that he has been
27 years a master, and nine years master of the "Ludworth," and that during that
time he has made something like, I believe, 700 voyages. That may be so, but
that in no wav shows that he has not on this occasion been guilty of gross
carelessness in the navigation of this vessel, and we not think we should be
doing our duty unless we suspended this man's certificate for six months. The
certificates of the officers of the "C. M. Palmer" went down with the vessel,
but I have no doubt that the Board of Trade will replace them.
I cannot, however, conclude this case without remarking that here we have a
vessel capable of being navigated at 11 knots an hour, with a master holding
only a certificate of service as a mate, the chief officer without any
certificate at all, and the chief engineer without any certificate at all;
neither the master nor the mate see to the look-out being properly placed; and
the engineer, according to his own account, takes it on himself, and, without
any order from either the master or the officer in charge, to reduce the speed
of the vessel to half speed, when all the time the telegraph is pointing to full
speed. Such a state of things seems to us utterly inconceivable. Everything, we
think, shows that the management on board this vessel was what it ought not to
have been.
Before concluding, I ought to state that I have received a letter from the
captain of the 39th company of the Royal Engineers, in which he informs me that
Sapper Millar of his company was a passenger on board the "C. M. Palmer" at the
time of the collision with the "Ludworth," and lost all his effects, and he
calls the attention of the Court to the fact, with the view, I presume, of
obtaining for him some compensation for his losses. I need hardly say that this
Court has no power to grant compensation for any such losses; that question is
for another court to decide. it was also said that Millar was in the water about
half an hour after the collision, and that a boy was picked up by him and placed
on an upturned boat. No doubt such conduct is very creditable on the part of the
man, but I regret to say that this Court has no power whatever to reward him in
any way.
Mr. Howard Smith.-I make no application, sir, as to costs.
Mr. Clarkson.-Sir, I ask for my costs either from the Board of Trade or from the
owners of the "Ludworth."
The Commissioner.-I shall not give costs against the Board of Trade.
Mr. Clarkson.-Then, sir, I ask them from the owners of the "Ludworth."
The Commissioner.-No, I think you had better seek for them in the Court of
Admiralty.
Mr. Clarkson.-We cannot recover them there.
The Commissioner.-If this Court is right in the judgment it has pronounced you
will be able to get your damages and your costs.
Mr. Clarkson.-Certainly not the costs of this inquiry.
The Commissioner.-I think 1 should not give costs in this case.
Mr. Clarkson.-It is a case in which you have two conflicting parties before the
Court, the inquiry having been caused entirely by the wrongful act of one of
those parties. If ever there is to be a case in which the owners of ships or the
masters of ships, having been put to the expense of attending an inquiry like
this without any fault of their own, but by the wrongful act of somebody else,
are to have their costs I should say that this is the very case of all others.
The Commissioner.-I may observe that if any case came before me in which I
should be of opinion that the Board of Trade had brought parties before the
Court unnecessarily, and put them to heavy expenses, I should be disposed to
condemn the Board of Trade in the costs, but I do not feel that I could do so in
this case.
Mr. Clarkson.-I do not ground my application upon any complaint that I have to
make against the Board of Trade, but I ask for costs against the delinquent
party. With regard to the Board of Trade, one sees that the Board of Trade in
directing inquiry to be held into such a matter as this are fulfilling a very
useful public function. Still there is hardly any reason why an inquiry which is
for the benefit of the public should not be at the expense of the public, and in
asking for costs against the Board of Trade I do it upon that footing. I do not
complain of the inquiry as far as we are concerned, but we come here not knowing
what charges may be made, certainly not knowing what may be said by the people
on board of that ship which turns out to be the sole delinquent ship, and I
cannot help thinking that it is a matter for consideration, whether we should
not have costs either against the Board of Trade or against the owners of the
delinquent ship. I think that rule 25 is drawn with a view to provide for such a
case as the present.
Mr. Howard Smith.-I should say that the cases in which you would hold that an
inquiry was unnecessary were the cases in which you would possibly give costs
against the Board of Trade, but in the case of an inquiry which is necessary the
Court follows the usual rule, according to which you leave all parties to pay
their own costs. I do not think that this differs from any other cases of
collision in which one party has been only to blame. I oppose the application
for costs at all events.
The Commissioner.-I confess that I think this was a very proper case for
inquiry. Mr. Clarkson's party, Mr. Webster's party, and Mr. Nelson's party
appeared for the purpose of protecting their own interests, lest anything should
be said or done which might be likely to injure them. Under those circumstances,
I certainly should not condemn the Board of Trade in the costs; and I confess
that I do not see my way to condemn Mr. Webster's parties, the owners of the
"Ludworth," in the costs of Mr. Clarkson's parties, both sides being interveners
in an inquiry which has been very properly instituted by the Board of Trade. If
any person is to blame for this collision it is the master of the "Ludworth,"
but I do not understand that I am asked to condemn him in the costs. On the
whole, I am not disposed to give any costs in this case.
(Signed)H. C. ROTHERY,
Wreck Commissioner.
W. 204. 60.-3/78. Wt. 3011.
