(No. 285.)
"IDA."
The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.
IN the matter of the formal investigation held at the Sessions Court, Guildhall,
Plymouth, on the 7th and 8th days of June 1878, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esq.,
Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Commander KNOX, R.N., and Captain JONES, as
Assessors, into the circumstances attending the abandonment and loss of the
sailing ship "IDA," of Plymouth, whilst on a voyage from Gloucester to Quebec,
on the 5th of May 1878.
The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the
above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons stated in the annexed
judgment, that the loss of the said ship was probably due to a leak in the
forward part at the keel seam, caused by her having grounded on a shoal in the
St. Lawrence River, during a former voyage, and which, not having been
thoroughly repaired at the time, broke out afresh, and caused her to fill with
water; but the Court is of opinion that the owners are not to blame for this,
and are not guilty of having knowingly sent this vessel to sea in an unseaworthy
condition.
The Court is also of opinion that Thomas Morris, the master, did all he could to
save his vessel, when he found that the water was gaining upon her; and that he
and the crew were fully justified in abandoning her as and when they did. It
therefore returns to him his certificate.
The Court makes no order as to costs.
Dated this 8th day of June 1878.
(Signed)H. C. ROTHERY,
Wreck Commissioner.
We concur in the above report.
(Signed)HENRY KNOX,
Commander R.N.,Assessors.
"HENRY JONES,
Judgment.
The Commissioner.—The "Ida" was a barque of 1,009 tons register, built at
Portland, New Brunswick, in the year 1852, and at the time of her abandonment
and loss which forms the subject of the present inquiry she was the property of
Mr. James Moore, of East Stonehouse Devon, and four other gentlemen, Mr. James
Moore being the managing owner.
She left Gloucester on the 20th April last in ballast bound for Quebec, having a
crew of 22 hands all told, and having brought up in Penarth Roads, there
remained for two days, and then proceeded on her voyage. At first she
experienced favourable weather, making only the usual quantity of water, which
we are told by the captain and the officers was such as could be pumped out in a
spell of from 10 minutes to a quarter of an hour in each watch. On Friday, the
3rd of May, however, she encountered a severe gale, and the ship thereupon began
to labour very much, and to make an unusual quantity of water; and all hands
were accordingly set to work at the pumps. The gale continued through that and
the following days, and at noon of the 4th it was found that she had 3 feet 6
inches of water in her hold, and at 7 p.m. she had 4 feet 6 inches. On that day
the men came aft to the captain and asked him what he intended to do with the
ship. He answered that it was his intention to take her to Quebec, if he could;
that he was doing his best to save the ship, but that if anybody could suggest a
better plan he should be very ready to adopt it, and he advised them to return
to the pumps, which they did.
In the meantime the master had ordered the carpenter and the second mate to go
down into the hold to ascertain, if possible, where the leak was. They told us
they went carefully round the vessel from stem to stern on both sides, but could
discover no place at which the water appeared to be coming in. Still the vessel
continued to make more water, and at daylight of Sunday, the 5th, she was found
to have 6 feet 4 inches in her hold. The men at that time had been continually
at the pumps for at least 22 hours, if not for a longer period, they were all
thoroughly exhausted; and, on a sail being seen to leeward, they again came aft
to the master, and asked him to bear down towards her. The captain, feeling that
the time had at length arrived when it was necessary to abandon the ship, bore
down towards the strange sail. On approaching her two boats were lowered from
the "Ida," and the master, officers, and crew having got into them, pulled to
the stranger, which proved to be the Austrian barque "Ezio," and were taken on
board. At that time we are told that the "Ida" had 7 feet of water in her hold,
and that she had a strong list to starboard. They continued to watch her for
some hours afterwards, during which time she remained afloat; nothing more,
however, was heard of her, and there can be little doubt that in the course of
the following night she foundered.
After the evidence from the ship had been taken, and some surveyors and others,
who had not been on board, had, by consent of Mr. Brian, the counsel for the
owners and master, been examined, Mr. Wolferstan, who appeared for the Board of
Trade, preferred charges against the master and owners. And, first, I propose to
deal with the charges against the master.
The charges against the master are, that he abandoned this vessel prematurely,
and that he failed to take proper measures for the preservation of the vessel,
in not personally inspecting the hold to ascertain where the leak was, and in
delegating that duty to the second mate and the carpenter.
Now, however the witnesses in this case may differ on other matters, there is
one point upon which they all agree, and it is this: that the vessel was not
abandoned one moment too soon. The master, mates, and men, all concur in saying
that, had they not left her when they did, had they remained by her during the
ensuing night, they would, without doubt, have gone down with her, and in that
opinion the Court is quite disposed to concur.
Mr. Wolferstan also in his opening address stated that one of the points to
which it would be necessary that our attention should be directed, was whether
the master had been wrong in continuing his voyage as. he did when the men came
aft and requested him to put into some port. But the difficulty we have is to
know into what port he ought to have put; he was endeavouring to make his way to
Quebec, and no doubt hoped to get there, or at any rate to get her into some
port in Canada. We certainly are not disposed to blame this master for
continuing his course as he did, and for hoping up to the last that he would be
able to save his vessel. He seems to have done all in his power to save her from
sinking; and although possibly it might have been better had he personally gone
down into the hold and ascertained for himself, if possible, where the water was
coming in, yet he delegated that duty to officers in whom he had entire
confidence, the carpenter and the second mate. And the Court sees no reason to
doubt the evidence which they gave, that they made a careful inspection of the
hold, and could find no traces of any leak. There is, therefore, no ground in
our opinion for charging the master in this case with any neglect of duty, and
we shall consequently return to him his certificate.
The charges against the owners are, first, that they sent this vessel to sea in
an unseaworthy condition, and secondly, that they ought to have placed her in
dry dock for examination and repair on her return from her last voyage to
Quebec.
And first, let us endeavour to ascertain what was the condition of this vessel,
when she was sent to sea on her last voyage. According to the evidence of some
of the men who have been examined before us, the vessel was a rotten old sieve,
or, as one of them called it, "a rotten old basket." her boats were rotten, her
pumps were useless and were constantly choked requiring to be cleared every 10
minutes, her bows even were falling out, and the water was coming into her at
all parts. Indeed, if the evidence of these men is to be believed, it is a
wonder that the vessel remained afloat as long as she did.
On the other hand, the officers tell us that the vessel, although no doubt an
old vessel, requiring like all timber ships to be pumped out every watch, was a
good solid vessel. They told us that her boats were in good order, and that one
of them had been new the previous year. The pumps, too, they told us were in
good order, and although the windmill pump broke down on the evening of the 4th,
the two main pumps continued to work up to the last, and if they became chocked
occasionally, as all pumps will do at times, they had no difficulty whatever in
at once clearing them.
Here, then, we have a direct conflict of evidence between the officers and the
men, and if we had to choose between the two I think that there can be no doubt
that we should accept the evidence of the officers in preference to that of the
men as to the condition of the vessel. As Mr. Brian has observed, the statements
of the men are of too sweeping a character. They speak of all the boats being
rotten, but if the boats were rotten it is strange that they should have been
taken on board the "Ezio" and brought to this country. If they were so rotten
the best thing would have been to have cast them adrift as soon as the "Ida's"
people were on board the "Ezio." But we have the evidence of the master of the
"Ezio" that they were very good boats, quite good enough to be taken on deck and
brought to England. Again, the men told us that the water was coming into her at
all parts, at the bows and sides, and yet not one of these men pretends that he
ever went down into the hold, and all that they saw was from looking down the
fore hatch. On the other hand, there is the evidence of the officers, of the
carpenter, of the first and second mates, of the steward, I think, and of the
second boatswain, all of whom went down into the hold and examined her
carefully, and all of them say that the bows and bow ports were perfectly tight,
and that there was no appearance of a leak anywhere.
Now it happens very unfortunately that of the three men who deposed to the
rotten condition of the vessel and her boats two were men-of-war's men, and one
of them had never before served on board a merchant vessel. To such men,
accustomed as they were to the most perfect equipments, an old ship engaged in
the timber trade, and which it was necessary to pump out every watch, would
appear to be a rotten old sieve. These men therefore might very well think the
vessel much worse than she really was, and say so without at all intending to
commit perjury. If then the case rested here, and we had to choose between them,
we should have been disposed to accept the evidence of the officers in
preference to that of the men. But to-day a mass of evidence has been given
which in our opinion settles the question, and removes all doubt from our minds
on the subject.
It may be well that I should here give a slight account of the past history of
this vessel. It seems, as I have said, that she was a New Brunswick vessel,
built originally in the year 1852, and that she was consequently at the time of
her loss 26 years old; and whatever some of the witnesses may say, a New
Brunswick vessel 26 years old is essentially an old vessel. For several years
past she had been employed as a timber ship, going out in ballast, or sometimes
with coals, and returning with timber, sometimes from Quebec, sometimes from
Pensacola, and sometimes from Rangoon. Her regular employment was that of a
timber ship, and during the whole time that Captain Morris has commanded her she
never seems to have carried a dry or perishable cargo. We were not told in what
condition she was kept previous to 1872, but in the years 1872, 1873, and 1875
she underwent very extensive repairs; and we have had to-day the evidence of
gentlemen who did the repairs and who surveyed her at those times, as well as in
April last, and who can therefore give us the best information as to what her
condition was at those periods.
Now the first witness produced was Mr. Schilston, a shipbuilder residing in
Plymouth, who told us that he had known the vessel for a great many years; that
in 1872 and 1873 he remetalled her and did other repairs to her; and that in
1875 the repairs which he did to her were very extensive. On that occasion she
had new stringers both in the 'tween decks and in the lower hold; she had new
sister keelsons; she had between 2,000 and 3,000 trenails put into her; and she
was caulked and remetalled over felt. The cost of the repairs which he did to
her in 1875 amounted, he told us, to above 1,000l., and it was after these
repairs that she was classed Æ 1 at Lloyd's for four years. The next witness
produced by the Board of Trade was Mr. Johnson, foreman to Mr. Levison, a
shipbuilder of Gloucester, who did certain repairs to her in April last shortly
before she left. I think he told us that she was in their hands from the 6th to
the 18th of April, and that during that time three strakes between the fore and
the main chains, the butts and hood ends, and the forecastle deck were caulked;
the metal was patched where it was necessary; and they took out and bored the
pumps, and put new suckers to them; they also put in a new chain locker. The
repairs do not appear to have been very extensive, but they were of such a
nature as would enable him to judge of the vessel's condition at that time. Then
there was Mr. Francillon, Lloyd's surveyor at Gloucester, who surveyed her on
the 16th of April last, on the occasion of what he called an "annual survey," a
term to which Mr. Grey has taken exception, but I hardly know why; he used the
term, I presume, in contradistinction to a special survey. He did not have the
vessel opened out on this occasion but he was on board her for about two hours,
looked all round, and as he has told us could see nothing amiss, and he reported
that she might be continued on her class Æ 1. Now all these witnesses were
produced by the Board of Trade, and all speak of the vessel as being a
thoroughly good strong ship, more especially for a timber ship.
After the charges had been preferred other witnesses were produced by Mr.
'Brian, and their evidence is in our opinion equally important. First we had Mr.
Cunning, formerly Lloyd's surveyor at Plymouth, and who surveyed her in 1875.
Then there was Mr. Prigg, the managing foreman to Mr. Schilston, who, in company
with Mr. Cunning, surveyed her in 1875 and superintended the repairs. Captain
Philip also told us that he had surveyed her a great many years ago. And,
lastly, we have Mr. Henry David Grey, the principal Board of Trade officer for
the south and south-west coasts of England, residing at Stonehouse, who has
lived here for upwards of 11 years, and who has given most important evidence in
the case. He told us that in the year 1875, being at Bristol, his attention was
called to the "Ida," which was at that time in the graving dock, and he gave
special instructions to his officer there to watch her closely, and to the best
of his belief that was done. Shortly afterwards, to Mr. Grey's astonishment, he
found her at Plymouth, having encountered bad weather on her way out and been
obliged to put back. He told us that he received special orders from the Board
of Trade to keep an eye upon her and that he did so, and he said that he did not
think there was a single timber or a single plank in that vessel which had not
been personally inspected by himself. He told us that one reason for observing
her so closely was that he found the metal wrinkled in a peculiar way as though
she had had a severe strain. He told us that during the whole of the repairs,
which were undertaken at that time lie examined her sometimes as often as two
and three times a day, and he says that no expense whatever was spared in the
repair, and that she was in his opinion put into a thoroughly good and efficient
condition. He told us also that although he had inspected every timber and every
plank on board, he did not find a single rotten one in her. Now the evidence of
a gentleman like Mr. Grey, holding the high position he does, is entitled to the
greatest weight, and shows us that in 1875 at any rate this vessel was in a
thoroughly good and efficient condition, a good strong vessel. In addition to
this we have the evidence of Lloyd's surveyor at Gloucester, and of Mr. Johnson,
the foreman of Mr. Levison, of Gloucester, who repaired-her immediately before
her departure upon her last voyage. With such a mass of evidence before us, and
from gentlemen so well qualified to judge of her state and condition, it is
quite impossible for us to find that the owners knowingly and wilfully sent this
vessel to sea in an unseaworthy condition, and the charge against them must
therefore fall, the charge of having sent her to sea in an unseaworthy
condition.
But the question still remains, how was it that this vessel, without any
extraordinarily bad weather, and after being at sea for so short a time, should
have been found in such a condition that it was absolutely necessary to abandon
her? And I think that we shall find an answer to this question in a fact which
has come out in the course of the inquiry. It seems that in June of last year
the vessel, on her outward voyage to Quebec, grounded in the St. Lawrence. She
took the ground forward, having at the same time deep water astern; and although
she remained for only about an hour on the shoal she was all the time in a
position of great danger, not being upon an even keel, the fore part being
aground, whilst the after part was afloat, and the vessel at the time having a
cargo of coals on board. On getting off she proceeded to Quebec, and was there
surveyed by Mr. John Dick, the port warden, a gentleman of high authority at
Quebec, and whose report I now have before me. He tells us that on being called
upon to survey her on the 19th of June he found that she was making a large
quantity of water, and he accordingly recommended her to be put into dock for
examination. This was accordingly done, and on the 25th of the same month he
again went on board, and his report is as follows:—"Again resumed my "
examination. Aft on the starboard side, at about 14 feet " forward of the stern
post. water was found issuing out of " the upper seams of the garboard strake.
On the same " side forward, at 15 feet aft from the stem, the water was " also
found issuing out from the keel seam." Accordingly Mr. Dick recommends "that
both the above places be " caulked, covered with felt, and metalled as before,
and " that the caulking above the copper line should be " examined;" and he
adds, "This having been done with " no apparent damage to her hull from
grounding, &c., I " am of opinion that she is fit to receive a cargo of timber,
" and to proceed on her voyage to Britain." Accordingly, the vessel returns to
this country, and is then despatched for a cargo of timber to Pensacola. After
her return to this country in March last she receives the trifling repairs of
which I have already spoken; she is not put into dry dock, no attempt is made to
examine her bottom, to see if she has sustained any serious damage in her bottom
owing to her having grounded in the St. Lawrence; but they are content with what
was done to her at Quebec, namely, that the two places where she was found to be
making water should be caulked, covered with felt, and remetalled; and she is
then sent again to sea on the voyage in which she foundered.
Now it is important to ascertain, if possible, where the water got into the
vessel. First, we have the evidence of the officers who went down into the hold,
that of the first and second mates, the carpenter, the second boatswain, and the
steward, who all say that the water did not come in either at the bows or
through the sides, in fact, that they could discover no appearance of any leak.
The inference therefore would seem to be that it came in under the ballast; and
that is the opinion to which the master and officers have come. What, then, more
probable than that it should have come in at the places where it was found to be
coming in after the grounding in the St. Lawrence, and which had only been
caulked and remetalled in those places, but without stripping off the metal off
the whole length of the garboard strake, to ascertain what was the condition of
the keel seam. That the water may have come in there some "15 feet aft from the
stem" is also quite consistent with the evidence of one of the men, who told us
that in looking down the fore hatchway he saw the water "running aft in a steady
stream, on each side of the keelson;" and that is exactly what would have
happened had the water been coming in forward at the place where she was damaged
by grounding in the St. Lawrence River. It is also quite consistent with the
evidence of the stevedore, who told us that, whilst the vessel remained at
Gloucester, she made no water, and that he had no occasion to use the pumps;
for, whilst lying quietly in dock, the parts where she had been injured would
probably remain closed, but the instant she got into a seaway they would open
and let the water in. The whole of the evidence, in our opinion, shows that the
water may, and probably did, come in at the keel seam, where it was found to be
coming in after she had grounded in the St. Lawrence.
Now the owners have been charged with having sent this ship on a voyage to
Quebec without having placed her in dry dock for examination and repair on her
arrival in the Port of Gloucester from the voyage where she grounded in the St.
Lawrence. No doubt it would have been better had the owners done so, seeing that
Mr. Dick's certificate showed that there had been no attempt to examine
carefully the damaged part by stripping off the metal; and his certificate
merely goes to this, that she was fit to receive a cargo of timber, and to
proceed to England with it. It would, I say, have been better had the owners on
her arrival in this country placed her in dry dock for the purpose of examining
her more thoroughly. Seeing, however, the evidence that has been given before us
this day by duly qualified persons, that in their opinion it was not obligatory
on the owners to put her into dry dock for that purpose; seeing also that she
had performed the voyage in safety, and apparently without making more water
than usual; that she had gone on another voyage to Pensacola and returned in
safety again apparently without making more water than usual; seeing all this,
can we say that the owners have been guilty of knowingly sending this vessel to
sea in an unseaworthy condition, even if it were the fact that she had sustained
damage at the keel seam or in the garboard strake, which ultimately occasioned
her loss? We think not. It was no doubt unfortunate that when she was surveyed
by Lloyd's surveyor at Gloucester, the fact that she had been ashore in the St.
Lawrence was not communicated to him; but the fact as mentioned to us by Mr.
Grey, that the owner had informed him that she had been aground in the St.
Lawrence River, in our opinion fully acquits him of any intention wilfully to
conceal the state of the vessel from those appointed to examine her.
The case was in our opinion a very proper one for an inquiry. At the same time,
we are very glad that we are able to come to the conclusion that the charges
against both the owners and the master have in our opinion failed. No doubt it
would have been better had the master gone down into the hold to ascertain for
himself where the vessel was leaking; but there may be something in what Mr.
Brian has said that with such a crew as he had he feared that if he left the
deck they might leave the pumps. As regards the owners, we must acquit them of
all intention wilfully to send this vessel to sea in an unseaworthy condition;
although, as a fact, we think that it would have been better if she had been
docked and her keel carefully examined on her return to this country after
having grounded in the St. Lawrence.
Of course, under the circumstances, no costs will be given to either party; but
we shall return to the master and the officers their certificates.
(Signed)H. C. ROTHERY,
Wreck Commissioner.
W. 299. 60.—6/78. Wt. 35.
