(No. 359.)
"J. E. WOODWORTH."
The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.
IN the matter of the formal investigation held at St. George's Hall, Liverpool,
on the 24th day of January 1879, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck
Commissioner, assisted by Captain H. D. GRANT, C.B., R.N., and Captain JONES, as
Assessors, into the circumstances attending the abandonment (and loss by fire)
of the British sailing ship "J. E. WOODWORTH," of Halifax, Nova Scotia, on the
17th November last, whilst on a voyage from Nova Scotia to the Falkland Islands.
Report of Court.
The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the
above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed,-
(1.) That the smoke which was observed on board the said vessel "J. E.
Woodworth" on the 10th and 16th November last arose from the coals, which were
stowed in the bottom of the vessel, having become ignited by spontaneous
combustion.
(2.) That as the coals were at the bottom of the vessel, and covered up with
lumber and shingles, it would not have been possible for the master to have got
to the seat of the fire without admitting air to the hold, thus running the risk
of fanning the fire into a blaze, and imperilling the lives of all on board.
(3.) That the master was justified in battening down the hatches and closing all
openings to prevent the air getting down into the hold, but that before doing so
he would have done well to have flooded the hold, as in that case the fire would
probably have been extinguished.
(4.) That the statement made before the British Consul at Rio de Janerio by John
William McNamara, the first mate, William Scott, the second mate, and Joseph
Shaw Wallace, able seaman on board the "J. E. Woodworth," to the effect that
there had been "unfair play in the matter of the destructon by fire of the said
vessel," is without foundation, and that they are seriously to blame for having
made so false a statement, and that the only object in making it was to obtain a
free passage for themselves to this country.
(5.) That, except in the matter of not flooding the hold, the master made every
effort and took all proper measures to save his vessel.
(6.) That the vessel was not prematurely abandoned.
The Court was not asked by the Board of Trade to deal with the certificate of
George Rufus Patton, the master, and it is therefore returned to him.
As regards John William McNamara, the first officer, seeing that he holds only a
master's certificate of service granted to him by the Canadian authorities, over
which the Court has no power, and that his misconduct did not in any way conduce
to the loss and abandonment of the vessel, the Court is obliged to return to him
his certificate.
The Court makes no order as to costs.
Dated the 24th day of January 1879.
(Signed)H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.
We concur in the above report.
(Signed)HENRY D. GRANT,
Captain, R.N.,Assessors.
"HENRY JONES,
Reasons.
The Commissioner.-The "J. E. Woodworth," which was a barque of 429 tons
register, belonging to the Port of Halifax, Nova Scotia, was built in Nova
Scotia in the year 1868, and at the time of the casualty which forms the subject
of the present inquiry she was the property of Mr. William J. McNeily, of
Margaretville, Annapolis, Nova Scotia, shipmaster. She left Kingsport, in Nova
Scotia, on the 7th September last with a cargo of 134 tons of coals, and a
considerable quantity of lumber and shingles, bound for Port Stanley, in the
Falkland Islands, and having a crew of 10 hands all told, and so far as appears
she was in fair condition for a vessel of her class, and for such a voyage as
she was about to undertake; at all events the Court has no evidence before it to
the contrary.
In order, however, that we may clearly understand the circumstances under which
the vessel was abandoned I should state that she had two decks, that there was a
cabin aft and a forecastle forward, both resting upon the lower deck, and rising
about 3 feet above the upper deck; and abaft the cabin was the lazarette, also
resting on the lower deck and with a hatchway in the floor opening into the
lower hold. Quite at the bottom were laid the coals, running the whole length
fore and aft, and rising about 6 feet amidships, 4 feet forward, and 8 feet
astern. and above them were the lumber and shingles, which completely filled up
the remainder of the lower hold under the lazarette, cabin and forecastle, as
well as the 'tween decks between the cabin and forecastle.
The vessel it seems met with very bad weather, having on the 24th of September
lost her deck load of timber, and on the 11th of the following month she was
thrown on her beam ends, and took in a considerable quantity of water. At about
10 p.m. of the 10th November the cabin and forecastle were found to be suddenly
filled with smoke. The second mate, whose watch it was at the time, immediately
called the master and first mate, and on their coming on deck every endeavour
was made to discover the cause of the smoke, but without avail. In about 20
minutes or a quarter of an hour it passed off, but hot air continued to come up
through the hatchway in the bottom of the lazarette communicating with the lower
hold, as well as through three and four holes in the floor of the forecastle,
which had been made some time before, probably for the purpose of letting the
water run away. Two days after, on the 12th, the master, finding the hot air to
be still coming up from the hold through the lazarette and the holes in the
forecastle floor, determined, after consultation with the chief officer, to stop
up all openings to the hold, with a view if possible of smothering the fire, if
any still existed there. The holes in the forecastle were accordingly filled up,
and some provisions having been got up, the lazarette was closed up, and four
holes in the stern just under the upper deck, and which were intended to
ventilate the lazarette, were also stopped up. From that time no heat or smoke
was perceived until about 8.30 of the 16th, when the cabin and the forecastle
were again found to be suddenly filled with smoke. Smoke was also seen to be
issuing from the main hatchway, and indeed from every place where it could find
an outlet, and apprehensions then began to be entertained that the cargo had
caught fire, Accordingly, the captain having removed from the cabin all that was
necessary, ordered it and the forecastle to be shut up and the doors and windows
to be fastened up, so as if possible to prevent the air from getting below and
feeding the fire. He also ordered the deck, to be flooded, but unfortunately the
vessel had no bulwarks, so that the water flowed off as soon as it was thrown on
them. However, they kept the decks wetted as well as they could, but
notwithstanding all their efforts the heat was such that the pitch became melted
and the oakum fell out in several places, and it was as much as they could do to
prevent the fire breaking out.
On the night of the 16th they observed the lights of a steamer, and having made
a signal to her she approached them, but passed on without offering to render
them any assistance. On the following morning, however, at daylight they
observed a vessel, which afterwards proved to be the "Napoleon," to leeward, and
bore down towards her, On nearing her the "Napoleon" lowered two boats, and her
master and mate came on board, and by their advice the "J. E. Woodworth's"
people left their vessel, and went on board the "Napoleon." It was now about
midday, and they were in about latitude 22° 7' south and about longitude 39° 42'
west, and about 300 miles from Rio. Soon after they had left her the mizen mast
was seen to go overboard; and at about 6 p.m., when they saw her for the last
time, she was then entirely enveloped in flames from the main hatch to the
stern, and of course there can be no doubt that in a very short time she must
have foundered. The "Napoleon" then proceeded with the "J. E. Woodworth's"
people to Rio, and landed them there on the 20th of the same month,
On presenting themselves before the British Consul he sent them to a boarding
house kept by a man named Donelly, and either then or soon afterwards informed
them that he should provide a passage for the master to England, but that the
rest of the officers and men must take service, and that he would procure them
ships as soon as he could. Very shortly after this McNamara, the chief mate,
made a communication to the consul, and on the 22nd of November, two days after
their arrival at Rio, he, William Scott, the second officer, and a seaman named
Joseph Shaw Wallace, signed a paper, which is in these words: "We, the under- "
signed members of the crew of the British barque 'J. E " Woodworth' hereby
declare that upon arrival in England " we will give evidence that will show that
there was " unfair play in the matter of the destruction by fire of the " vessel
in testimony whereof we hereunto affix our " signatures this 22nd day of
November 1878." Upon this the British Consul determined to send these three men,
as well as the master, to this country. They were accordingly put on board a
vessel on the 23rd November, and arrived at Southampton on the 15th December
following, whence they were forwarded on to this port, and have, as I
understand, been staying here since the 18th ultimo. What became of the rest of
the crew we are not informed, but I presume that the British Consul provided
ships for them, and that they are now scattered all over the world, so that it
would be quite impossible to find them. I ought, however, to except the steward,
who, being very ill at the time, was also provided with a passage by the consul,
and who is now I believe in the hospital in this town, but much too ill to be
examined. His deposition, however, to which I shall presently have occasion to
refer, has been brought in, and has been admitted as evidence in these
proceedings.
Now the questions upon which Mr. Ravenhill has asked for the opinion of the
Court are as follow:-
"1. What was the cause or the smoke observed on the " 'J. E. Woodworth,' and
were proper measures taken to " ascertain the locality and to extinguish it,
either when it " was first observed or otherwise?
"2. Was the master of the ship justified in merely " battening down the hatches
and approaches to the hold " without first ascertaining the extent and locality
of the " fire, either when it was first observed or otherwise?
"3. Whether there is any truth in the statement made " before the British
Vice-Consul at Rio, that there was " unfair play in the matter of the
destruction of the ship, " or that the master had set fire to her; and if the "
said statements are found to be untrue, whether the " chief mate, John William
McNamara, the second mate, " William Scott, and Joseph Shaw Wallace, A.B., are
not " seriously to blame for making them, and how it was that " the statements
were made?
"4. Whether the master made every effort to save his " vessel?
"5. Whether he prematurely abandoned her?"
I should add that no application has been made to us by the Board of Trade to
deal with the master's certificate, the result of the evidence in the opinion of
the learned counsel showing that the master was not in any way to blame for the
casualty.
It seems that it was the owner's intention to recopper the vessel before sending
her on this voyage; and whilst waiting for the copper, for which he had been
obliged to send to Quebec, he despatched her to Spring Hill Collieries, in the
county of Northumberland, in Nova Scotia, there to take in her coals. Having
completed the shipment of the coals on the 18th of July she returned to
Kingsport, was there recoppered, and then proceeded to a place called Wolfville
where she took in a portion of the lumber, but as there was not a sufficient
depth of water to allow her to take in the whole of her cargo at that place she
returned to Kingsport, where the remainder was taken in; and on the 6th or 7th
of September she proceeded to sea. She, however, came to anchor in West Bay,
owing to five of her crew having deserted, and did not finally get away until
the 13th. At that time the coals had already been on board for nearly two
months. On the 24th of September, and again on 11th of October, she meets with
bad weather and makes a quantity of water, and according to the master she had
to be pumped out twice every watch, or every two hours, except when the weather
was very fine, when it was only necessary to pump her out once in a watch, or
once in every six, or every eight hours. What was the special and distinguishing
characteristics of the coal from the Spring Hill Collieries we are not informed;
but if it is a coal in which spontaneous combustion is liable to be produced the
conditions could hardly have been more favourable for its development. In the
first place, we are told that when it was shipped the weather was very foggy and
wet; in the course of the voyage it seems to have been frequently wetted, and it
had been on board for nearly four months when the fire broke out. Once, too,
that spontaneous combustion had been set up in the coal it would have admirable
materials for feeding the fire in the lumber and shingles which were stowed
above the coal; and we have therefore no doubt that it is to spontaneous
combustion alone that the ignition of this cargo is due.
The next question for our consideration is, whether proper measures were taken
to ascertain the locality of the fire, and to extinguish it, either when it was
first observed or afterwards? It seems that as soon as the captain discovered
the smoke on the 10th he went down into the larzarette to ascertain if possible
where it came from, but he could not find out, and soon afterwards the smoke
ceased. Under these circumstances we think that it would have been a very
imprudent thing on his part to have taken off the hatches and removed any
portion of the cargo in order to get at the supposed seat of the mischief. There
is little doubt that if he had done so, and had thus admitted air to the cargo,
the vessel would in a few minutes have been in a blaze.
Whether the master took the best measures in his power to extinguish this fire,
is, in the opinion of the nautical assessors, more open to question. It was no
doubt a very proper proceeding on his part to prevent the air getting to the
fire, and so far the battening down the hatches was a good measure; but the
assessors are very strongly of opinion that when he found hot air continuing to
issue from the hold, even after the smoke had ceased, showing clearly that there
was still heat there, if instead of merely battening down the hatches and
stopping up all the holes he had flooded the lower part of his cargo in all
probability the fire would have been extinguished. Nor would he have had any
difficulty in doing this. In the first place, we are told that it was necessary
to pump the ship out every two hours to keep the water under, it was therefore
only necessary to discontinue pumping and the water would have risen as a matter
of course; or he might have taken out the pump boxes and poured water into the
pump wells; or he might, if that had not been sufficient, have cut holes in the
deck, and so let the water down into the hold. Nor would there have been any
danger of sinking the ship by so doing, seeing the nature of the rest of her
cargo; and as the depth of the coal amidships was only 6 feet, all that it would
have been necessary to do would have been to pour 6 feet of water into her; and
that the assessors think that she would very well have borne until the fire had
been extinguished, when it might have been pumped out again.
It was said by Mr. Gray Hill that on the 10th, after the smoke had ceased, the
master did not think that it was so serious a matter as it subsequently proved
to be; and that, on the other hand, it was a very much more serious matter in
his opinion to fill the lower part of his vessel with water. At the same time a
seaman should always remember that there is no greater danger to a ship at sea
than fire in the hold, and that it is far better to flood the lower part of the
cargo than to allow the fire to smoulder until it is ready to burst out into
flame it seems that this was the first cargo of coal that the master had ever
had to do with, and he was probably quite ignorant of its properties. We are not
asked by the Board of Trade to deal with this master's certificate; and indeed
if we had been, we do not think that the omission to flood the lower part of the
hold, and his belief that by battening down the hatches he would be able to
smother the fire, are offences for which we should be justified in depriving him
of his certificate; at the utmost it amounts to a mere error of judgment.
We now come to the next question upon which our opinion is asked, namely,
whether there is any truth in the statement which was made before the British
Vice-Consul at Rio, that there was unfair play in the matter of the destruction
of the ship, or that the master had set fire to her, and, if the said statements
are found to be untrue, whether the chief mate, John William McNamara, the
second mate, William Scott, and Joseph Shaw Wallace, A.B., are not seriously to
blame for having made them, and how it was that they were made? Of course, after
the evidence that has been given before this Court there cannot be a doubt that
the statement made by these men before the British Consul at Rio is utterly
false from beginning to end. In fact they have all three admitted it to be so,
and it has been distinctly contradicted by the master and steward, the only two
other witnesses who have given evidence. The account given by McNamara, the
chief officer, as to how they came to make this false statement is as follows.
He told us that, finding that the consul did not intend to send him to England,
and being very unwilling to remain at Rio, where he says that there was a good
deal of sickness prevailing, he invented this wicked falsehood in order to
induce the consul to send him to this country as a passenger. The account which
the steward gives us of what occurred at Rio is stated in paragraph 14 of his
affidavit, and is as follows: he says, " On the 23rd November I was in the
boarding house with " the mate, when he said to me that when the fire first "
broke out he pulled up the after companion steps and " saw the fire, and that he
knowed enough to hang the " captain. I said that it was impossible as the steps
were " nailed down, and he then said, 'Any way, if the crew " will only come to
the consul and make a charge against " the captain: we shall all be sent home.'"
Neither of these men could deny that they had made these charges at Rio, and all
that McNamara could say in his defence was that he had been put up to it by
Donelly, the lodging-house keeper. Now this man John William McNamara holds a
certificate of service as master, granted to him by the Dominion of Canada and
bearing date the 16th day of September 1872, and if the Court had the power to
do so, most certainly it would take it from him. But as I stated in the case of
the "Chillianwallah," and I have seen no reason to depart from the views which I
then expressed, this Court has no power to deal with certificates of service
issued by the Canadian authorities. I cannot, therefore, touch this man's
certificate. I should add that, even if it had been a certificate of competency
or a Board of Trade certificate, it would have been equally beyond our power to
touch it, for the 242nd section of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, sub-section
(2) only gives this Court power to deal with an officer's certificate, when "the
loss or abandon- " ment of or serious damage to any ship or loss of life has "
been caused by his wrongful act or default;" and it cannot be said that this
man's conduct has in any way contributed to the loss or abandonment of this
vessel. All, therefore, that the Court can do is to express its deep disgust at
the conduct of these men, who, for their own selfish ends, invented a story
which might have deprived this master of his character, and even put him on his
trial on a criminal charge simply in order that they might be sent to this
country free of expense, and to save themselves from being entered on board some
ship into which they did not care to go.
In reply to the fourth question, on which our opinion is asked, namely, whether
the master made every effort to save his vessel? we have only to observe that,
apart from what has already been said about not flooding the hold with water to
extinguish the fire, we think that the master made every effort to save his
vessel; and no imputation can in our opinion be made against him on this
account.
As regards the fifth question, whether the master prematurely abandoned his
ship? I think that I cannot do better than read the certificate which was given
to him by the master of the "Napoleon," and to which the first officer of that
vessel has also signed his name it is in these words: " I will report to whom it
may concern the condition " I found the barque 'J. E. Woodworth,' Captain
Patton, " at sea November 17th; in latitude 22° 7' S., longitude " 39° 42' W. At
daylight on Sunday November 17th, 1878, " in the above-mentioned latitude and
longitude, I sighted " a barque to windward with English ensign flying union "
down, with a part of her sails gone. I brought my ship " to the wind; she came
down across my stern, saying " that he was on fire, and had been so for some
time, and " wished to be taken off. I immediately with my first " officer went
on board. I found everything battened down " tight, and the smoke coming out of
every seam. The " decks were so hot that I could scarcely walk on them, " and in
some places they would bend at my weight in " walking over them. I think Captain
Patton, officers, " and crew had done everything in their power to save the "
vessel. I had just time to get them on board of the " 'Napoleon' with a few of
their personal effects when she " burst out in one mass of flames. This,
gentlemen, is the " true condition I found the 'J. E. Woodworth' in. " Yours
respectfully, Charles H. Turner, commanding " barque 'Napoleon,' of New Bedford,
Massachusetts." And that statement is confirmed by the signature of Mr. Charles
C. Topping, the first officer. After such a certificate it seems almost
unnecessary to say more; and I will only observe that both the captain and
steward fully bear out the description given of the vessel's condition by the
officers of the "Napoleon;" and even the three men who brought the charges
against the captain at Rio have all said that the vessel was certainly not
prematurely abandoned, and that every effort was made to save her. We think then
that the captain was fully justified in abandoning her, and we shall restore to
him his certificate. As regards McNamara we must also return to him his
certificate, but we do so with the very greatest possible regret. He is a man
who has shown himself to be utterly unfit to hold any certificate at all.
Mr. Ravenhill.-With regard to McNamara, will the Court consider whether the
costs of the inquiry should not be ordered as against him?
The Commissioner.-No, I think not.
Mr. Ravenhill.-I apprehend with regard to all the witnesses who signed that
statement that the Board of Trade will not pay their expenses?
The Commissioner.-That I must leave to the Board of Trade. I may say that in the
opinion of the Court they are utterly undeserving of any consideration, but I do
not know that I have any power to decide judicially what I am now requested to
do, namely, whether the Board of Trade, having summoned them as witnesses, shall
or shall not pay them their expenses.
Mr. Ravenhill.-Then I ask you, sir, to say whether you think they are entitled
to their costs and expenses. It is a very common thing indeed in courts of other
jurisdiction that witnesses who have behaved as they have done in this case are
not allowed their expenses. That is all that I would ask as to those three men
who signed that paper. I think in justice to the public I am right in asking
that they should be disallowed their expenses.
The Commissioner (to Mr. Gray Hill).-Have you anything to say?
Mr. Hill.-Yes, sir. I was going to ask whether you did not think this a case in
which the Board of Trade might allow the captain something in respect of his
expenses. He has been brought over here, not to his home, and he has been
detained a long time. I admit that it is not the fault of the Board of Trade,
but it seems to have arisen partly from the misconduct of the mate, and partly
from the want of inquiry by the consul into the matter; but whether what has
happened is due to the consul or to the Board of Trade, it comes to the same
thing, it is Her Majesty's Government, and perhaps Her Majesty's Government
might feel it right and proper, if you expressed an opinion to that effect, to
pay the costs or to go so far as to order the Board of Trade to pay the costs of
this inquiry.
Mr. Ravenhill.-I am sure that the Board of Trade will give the captain the
fullest allowance they can under the circumstances when they hear what has
occurred. I am sure they will be most anxious to do justice to him, regretting
the particular circumstances under which he has come over here. The Court has
said, although they would not deal with his certificate, that he might have
flooded his ship. Whether the Court thinks it right that the Board of Trade
should have information upon that point, or that they should pay a larger scale
of costs than they have paid, I do not know, but I may mention that he has
received 7s. a day from the time he has been in England.
The Commissioner.-I think that the Court is not called upon in this case to make
any order as to costs.
This case, quite apart from the statement made by McNamara and the others to the
British Consul at Rio, was a very proper one for an inquiry. It is true that the
master upon the whole behaved well, at the same time if he had not shown a want
of judgment in one particular it is possible the vessel might have been saved.
This required some explanation. Moreover, his character has been completely
cleared from the charges preferred against him at Rio. The master, therefore,
has no reason to complain of the inquiry, for he has largely benefited by it. I
cannot therefore give him his costs. As regards the three men, I am not asked in
the words of the 21st Rule to " order the cost and expenses of the proceedings
or any " part thereof to be paid by either the Board of Trade or " by any other
party to the proceedings;" but I am asked to say whether the Board of Trade are
to pay these witnesses whom they have summoned their expenses. I am not asked to
make an order for the payment of costs as between party and party, but to settle
the amount of costs, if any, due by the Board of Trade to the witnesses, and I
do not see that the rules give me any such power.
Mr. Ravenhill.-But they are made parties.
The Commissioner.-No, I think not.
Mr. Gray Hill.-Only the mate.
Mr. Ravenhill.-The mate and the master.
The Commissioner.-The other two are not.
Mr. Ravenhill.-My application more particularly applied to the mate.
The Commissioner.-I do not feel disposed to make any order as to costs. I do not
order that they are to have their costs, but I leave the matter entirely to the
Board of Trade. Had the mate asked for his costs it would have been different, I
should then have said, " Your conduct has " been so disgraceful that I do not
think you are entitled " to them. Or had he taken an active part as a party to
the proceedings, and thus increased the expenses, I might then have condemned
him in the whole or a portion of the expenses. But he has acted simply the
passive part of a witness, and has been made a party to the proceedings, not
voluntarily, but by compulsion. I do not think that I should be justified in
making an order as between the Board of Trade and these witnesses, but what I
will say is, that if the Board of Trade have the power to refuse payment of
these expenses, they would be fully entitled to do so.
(Signed)H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.
We concur.
(Signed)HENRY D. GRANT,
Captain, R.N.,Assessors.
"HENRY JONES,
I. 101. 172. 70.-2/79. Wt. B 612. E.& S.
