Wreck Report for 'Garonne', 1879

(No. 291.)

"GARONNE," (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster, on the 27th of May 1879, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain PICKARD, R.N., and Captain HENRY JONES, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the steamship "GARONNE," of Liverpool, on Tapley Shoal, Gulf of St. Vincent, South Australia, on the 19th of March 1879.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, found, for the reasons stated in the annex hereto,-

1. That the stranding of the said vessel was due to her having, on her departure from Adelaide, been laid by William Frederick Owen, the master, on too westerly a course, and to no allowance having been made by him for the tide, which was setting her to the north, and therefore in the direction of Tapley Shoal.

2. That there was no reason to think that the vessel's compasses when she left Adelaide were not in proper order.

3. That the courses steered after leaving Adelaide were neither safe nor proper, and that due and efficient steps were not taken for the navigation of the vessel.

The Court was of opinion that the casualty was due to the wrongful acts and defaults of the said William Frederick Owen, but inasmuch as no serious or material damage appears to have been done to her by the stranding, the Court had no power to deal with his certificate, and therefore ordered it to be returned to him.

The Court made no order as to costs.

Dated this 31st day of May 1879.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

BENJ. S. PICKARD, R.N.,

Assessors.

 

"

HENRY JONES,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case came before the Court on the 27th of May 1879.

Mr. Bowen and Mr. Mackenzie appeared for the Board of Trade.

Mr. Nelson for the master of the "Garonne."

Mr. Parker for the owners, and

Mr. Addison for the chief officer.

Four witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Bowen gave in a written statement of the questions on which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Nelson then produced a witness, who was examined, and all parties having declared that they had no further witnesses to produce, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions which had been submitted for its opinion.

The circumstances of the case are as follow:-The "Garonne" is an iron screw steam vessel belonging to the Port of Liverpool, of the burthen of 3,876 tons gross and 2,468 net register, and is fitted with engines of 550 horsepower. She was built at Govan, near Glasgow, in the year 1871, and at the time of the casualty which forms the subject of the present inquiry she was the property of Mr. James Anderson, of Billiter Court, in the city of London, and two other gentlemen, Mr. James Anderson being the managing owner.

She left Adelaide, in South Australia, on the 19th of March last bound to London, having on board a crew of 122 hands all told, 312 passengers, and about 2,000 tons of merchandize, chiefly wool, her draught of water being 21 feet 8 inches forward and 25 feet 4 inches aft. We are told, and we have every reason to believe it, that she was in a thoroughly good and efficient condition. She had two standard compasses, one on the bridge and one over the captain's cabin, and two steering compasses, one before the after wheel, the other before the bridge wheel, the vessel being ordinarily steered from amidships. She got under weigh at about noon of the 19th, from where she had been lying inside Wonga Shoal, the wind at the time being light, the sea smooth, and the weather perfectly clear, and at about half-past 12, when the Semaphore bore east, distant about three miles, a course was laid south 63° west by bridge standard compass, and the engines were set on at full speed, the vessel making, we are told, for the first half hour about 10 knots an hour, and after that 11 knots. The same course was steered until about 2.15 p.m., when the master, observing that she appeared to be nearing the land, ordered the course to be altered to S. 56° W. by bridge standard compass. That course was continued until about 2.45 p.m., when the second officer, who was on the bridge, reported Troubridge Lighthouse bearing about a point on the port bow, and distant from 10 to 11 miles. Upon this the captain ordered the vessel's helm to be starboarded so as to bring the lighthouse three points on the starboard bow, and the vessel was then steadied at south 30° west by bridge standard compass, We were told by the captain that, being somewhat anxious about his compasses, he had after leaving Adelaide taken several azimuth observations with a view of testing their accuracy. At about 3 p.m. he took another azimuth observation, and then stepped into the chart room, which is on the bridge, for the purpose of laying off the bearings. In about four minutes afterwards, and whilst still in the chart room, he felt the vessel roll, and on coming out found that she had taken the ground. The helm was at once put hard astarboard, and the engines reversed full speed, but she remained fast. Both the master and chief officer agree that the place where the vessel grounded was on the east side of Tapley Shoal, and about the middle of it, Troubridge Lighthouse bearing south 62° west by the bridge standard compass. On the following day 250 tons of the cargo were taken out, and at 1 a.m. of the 21st the vessel came off without having, as it would seem, sustained any material damage, and she accordingly continued her voyage, arriving at Gravesend on the 7th instant.

Now the questions on which the opinion of the Court has been asked are:-

" 1. What was the cause of the stranding of the vessel?

" 2. Whether there is any reason to doubt that when she " left Adelaide her compasses were in proper order?

" 3. Whether after leaving Adelaide safe and proper " courses were steered, and due and efficient steps taken " for the navigation of the vessel."

And first, as to the condition of the vessel's compasses. It seems that on the run down from Sydney to Melbourne both the standard compasses were found to be out of adjustment, the azimuth rings having become bent, owing, the captain said, to carelessness in taking the covers off. They were accordingly sent ashore at Melbourne, and the rings having been straightened they were replaced on board the vessel, and there is no reason to suppose that after that time there was anything wrong with them. It is a well known fact that the grounding of a vessel will frequently derange the compasses, but it does not appear that her compasses were deranged by the grounding on Tapley Shoal, for after she came off she continued her voyage, without, having had anything done to them, making her points from time to time, and arrived safely in the Port of London. The captain indeed stated that he should have been glad to have had better compasses, and that in his opinion they were not good enough for the vessel, but he could not say that the casualty was in any respect due to the compasses. In our opinion they were in good order when she left Adelaide.

Secondly, were the courses steered after leaving Adelaide safe and proper courses? The master has told us that the course steered on taking his departure from soon after half-past 12 to 2.15 p.m. was south 63° west by bridge standard, which allowing for an error of from 6° to 7° gave S. 56° or 57° W. true, from 2.15 to 2.45 p.m. the course by bridge compass was south 56° west, and allowing for an error of 5° this gave S. 51° W. true, and from 2.45 till she struck S. 30° W. by bridge compass, on which course he said there was no error. Now the master was asked by Mr. Bowen to lay down those courses upon the chart, and he was obliged to admit that a course S. 56° or 57° W. from the place where he had laid his course would if continued have taken him on Tapley Shoal, nor would the trifling alteration of 5° to the south which he made at 2.15 have made much difference. Indeed the master admitted at last that he had laid the vessel on too westerly a course and that it was an error of judgment on his part. The master also admitted that he had not made any allowance for the set of the tide. But when they left Adelaide the flood tide was making, and this, as his own chart showed, would set him to the northward and directly on Tapley Shoal. In our opinion there can be no doubt as to what caused the casualty, it was due to the master having on taking his departure laid the vessel on a course too much to the west, and to his having made no allowance whatever for the current, which was setting him towards the Tapley Shoal. The courses, therefore, which were steered from Adelaide were clearly neither safe nor proper, nor can it be said that due and efficient steps were taken for the navigation of the vessel.

Now the master attributes the casualty to error of judgment on his part; he tells us that his attention was so much taken up with verifying his compasses that he omitted to see to the proper navigation of the vessel. It appears to us, however, that to have laid his vessel on a course, which even on his own admission would take him on Tapley Shoal, and to have made no allowance for the tide, which was setting him to the northward, is something more than a mere error of judgment; it is in our opinion a grave act of negligence in the position in which this master was. He had no right under the circumstances with the lives of so many persons in his charge to have steered the course he did; he should have laid the vessel from the first on a course which would have taken her well clear of this shoal. Fortunately the weather was fine and the sea smooth, had it been otherwise there might have been a very great loss not of property only but of life. Whilst, however, it is clear that the master has been guilty of more than a mere error of judgment, the Board of Trade have not asked us to deal with his certificate, it appearing that the vessel had not sustained any serious or material damage by grounding. Mr. Nelson indeed asked us to say that she had not sustained any damage at all, but this we could not do after the evidence of the chief engineer, who told us that the stranding had deranged the condenser so that they had been obliged to take it to pieces, and that it is now under repair. All that we are prepared to say is that there is no evidence that she sustained any material or serious damage by the stranding, and that consequently after the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench in ex parte Storey we have no power to deal with this master's certificate.

Before concluding this report it may be well to refer to a circumstance which occurred in the course of the inquiry. Mr. Augustus Robinson Winckler, the second mate of the vessel, and the officer in charge of the deck when the casualty occurred, on being sworn stated that he should not answer any questions unless a written undertaking was given to him that he was to be paid such a remuneration for his loss of time and expenses as he thought himself entitled to. He was told that he would be paid the sum usually allowed to gentlemen holding the position which he did, but he said that that would not be sufficient. He was then told that if he refused to give evidence he would not receive any remuneration to which he replied that if he did not get the remuneration to which he thought himself entitled (but what that was he did not say), he would not answer any questions. As Mr. Winckler's evidence was not very important, after the candid admission of the master, that all the blame rested with himself, Mr. Bowen did not press for his examination, and accordingly the witness was dismissed. Had his evidence, however, been necessary to the inquiry the Court would have been prepared to have exercised all the powers which it possesses to compel him to answer. This is the first occasion on which a witness in a case of this kind has refused to give evidence; and I confess that it does not speak very highly for Mr. Augustus Robinson Winckler that he should have refused to give his evidence unless he was paid a sum in excess of that which is usually paid to gentlemen holding the same position as himself.

No costs were asked for by any of the parties to the proceedings.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

BENJN. S. PICKARD, R.N.,

Assessors.

 

"

HENRY JONES,

 

(No. 434.)

L 367. 63 70.-6/79. Wt. 47. E. & S.