Wreck Report for 'Duncraig', 1880

(No. 574.)

"DUNCRAIG."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal investigation held at Westminster on the 14th of April 1880, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain FORSTER and Captain BEASLEY, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the material damage sustained by the sailing ship "DUNCRAIG," of Glasgow, on the 13th of February 1880, when one of her crew was lost, whilst on a voyage from San Francisco to Queenstown with a cargo of wheat.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed,-

1. That the "Duncraig," when she left San Francisco, had a sufficient freeboard.

2. That the cargo of the "Duncraig" was safely and properly stowed.

3. That, apart from all questions of cost, it would appear from the evidence in this case that a grain cargo stowed wholly in bags is safer than when stowed in bulk.

The Court makes no order as to costs.

Dated this 14th day of April 1880.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

GEORGE H. FORSTER,

Assessors.

 

"

THOS. BEASLEY,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 14th of April instant, when Mr. Muir McKenzie appeared for the Board of Trade, the owners and master of the "Duncraig" were not represented. Five witnesses having been produced and examined, Mr. Muir McKenzie stated that the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court upon the following questions:-

" 1. Had the 'Duncraig,' when she left San Francisco, sufficient freeboard?

" 2. Was the cargo of the 'Duncraig' safely and properly stowed, and, if not, in what particulars was the stowage defective?

"3. In the opinion of the Court should a grain cargo be stowed wholly in bags, or partly in bags and partly in bulk, or wholly in bulk?"

Mr. Muir McKenzie having then been heard on behalf of the Board of Trade, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions on which its opinion had been asked. The circumstances of the case are as follow:-

The "Duncraig," which is an iron sailing ship belonging to the port of Glasgow, of 740 tons gross, and 699 tons net register, was built at Dumbarton in the year 1870, and at the time of the casualty, which forms the subject of the present inquiry, she was the property of Messieurs Finlayson, of Lochalsh, in the county of Ross, shipowners. She left San Francisco on the 13th of September last, bound to Queenstown for orders, with a crew of 17 hands all told, and having on board a cargo of 1,006 tons of wheat, wholly in bags. On leaving San Francisco she was on an even keel, drawing 16 feet 8 or 16 feet 9, and having a freeboard of 3 feet 11 or 4 feet, which the captain told us would, when she got out to sea, be increased to about 4 feet 1. On the voyage, but when more particularly we were not informed, one of the hands fell from the yard arm overboard, and although a boat was at once lowered, and every effort made to save him, he was unfortunately drowned. On the 13th of February last she was in latitude 45° north, and longitude 23° west, and was lying to under her main topsail, the wind blowing a hard gale from the W.S.W., when she was struck by a heavy sea, which carried away her mainmast within 5 feet of the deck, washed the man at the wheel overboard, swept off all the boats, burst in the skylight and companion, partly tilling the cabin, and gave the vessel a list to port. Having got the vessel before the wind, and secured the mizenmast, the captain ordered the well to be sounded, when it was found that she had about 18 inches of water in her, which was accordingly pumped out. The weather, however, continued to be very bad, and on the 15th she was again struck by another very heavy sea, which carried away the wheel and injured one of the crew. On the 17th the weather began to moderate, and on the 18th they were able to open the hatches, When it was found that a portion of the cargo had slightly settled and had shifted over to the port side, the ba??s of wheat being close up to the upper deck on the port side, whilst there was room enough on the starboard side for a man to crawl along. The crew were at c??ce set to work to shift some of the bags from the port to the starboard side, and after carrying over about two tiers of bags the vessel, according to the evidence of the witnesses, was brought nearly upright, and she then continued her voyage, arriving at Queenstown on the 23rd of the same month. There she remained about a fortnight undergoing repairs, when she received orders to Proceed to London, where she arrived on the 13th of March last, and went into the Commercial Dock to discharge.

These then being the circumstances of the case, the first question on which the Board of Trade have asked the opinion of the Court is, "Had the 'Duncraig,' when " she left San Francisco, sufficient freeboard?" According to the evidence of the master the "Duncraig," when she left San Francisco, had a freeboard of 3 feet 11 to 4 feet, which when she got out to sea would become about 4 feet 1 inch, and this is confirmed by Mr. Warner, the surveyor to the Board of Trade, who inspected the ship immediately on her arrival the Commercial Docks, and who told us that she had then a freeboard of 3 feet 8 to 3 feet 9, but which would be increased about 4 inches in salt water. Now seeing that the hold was 18.5 feet deep, a freeboard of 4 feet to 4 feet 1 would give as nearly as possible 2 3/5 inches to every foot depth of hold. Had she been a wooden vessel, probably 3 inches or at all events 2 3/4 inches would have been necessary, but it is generally considered that an iron vessel would do with somewhat less freeboard. We think, therefore, that she had a sufficient freeboard, and that although filly laden she was not overladen.

The next question, upon which our opinion was asked, is "Was the cargo of the 'Duncraig' safely and pro- " perly stowed, and, if not, in what particalars was the " stowage defective?" In order to answer this question it will be necessary to give some description of the vessel and of the arrangement of the cargo on board. It seems that she had two decks, the lower however being only partly laid, having a large open space in the centre, which extended from the alter part of the after hatchway to within 5 or 6 feet of the foremast, and about 8 feet from each side. Down the centre ran a row of iron stanchions, 3 inched in diameter, and about 5 feet apart; and on each side of these stanchions were placed shifting boards about 18 to 20 feet long by 2 1/2 inches thick, which were lashed to the stanchions and were nailed to cross pieces of wood These shifting boards extended from deck to deck, and ran from the after cabin bulkhead to within about 5 or 6 feet of the foremast. The cargo which, as I have stated, was packed wholly in bags, had been stowed by a regular stevedore at San Francisco, and in accordance with the practice, which we are told prevails at that port, some of the bags were laid fore and aft, and some of them athwart ships. Mr. Warner, who inspected the cargo before it had been touched, and also whilst it was being unladen, told us that in the lower tiers some of the bags were placed athwartships, but that in the upper tiers they were more fore and aft, and that at the top they were all fore and aft. He told us also that the tiers were built up in steps forward, the fore part of the topmost tier being about 3 feet abaft the foremast, whilst the lowest tier extended to about 5 feet forward of the foremast, leaving an empty space forward Mr. Warner further stated that in his opinion the cargo was well and properly stowed, and in that opinion we are disposed to concur. It was suggested, bowever, by the learned counsel for the Board of Trade, that it might perhaps have been better if there had been some pockets, or half or quarter bags for broker stowage, but in the opinion of the assessors that was, not necessary, any empty spaces being readily filled by the arrangement of the bags fore and aft or athwart ships. It should, however, be observed that, owing to the upper tiers being laid fore and aft, they would more easily shift into the wings by rolling over one another. On the other hand, if the upper tiers had been laid athwartships, they would have had a tendency, if the vessel pitched in a heavy sea, to roll the bags into the empty space forward, and thus bring the vessel down by the head. This might, however, have been avoided by putting up a strong bulkhead forward, and Mr. Warner is of opinion that that should have been done, but, with this exception, the cargo appears to have been safely and properly stowed.

The last question, upon which our opinion is asked, is Whether "in the opinion of the Court a grain cargo " should be stowed wholly in bags, or partly in bags " and partly in bulk, or wholly in bulk?"

This is a question which the Court has some delicacy in answering, seeing that it is about to be the subject of an inquiry before a Select Committee of the House of Commons. The assessors, however, are very strongly of opinion that, apart from any question of expense, a grain cargo stowed wholly in bags would be much safer than if stowed in any other way; and I am bound to say that the facts of this case appear very strougly to confirm that opinion. According to the evidence of the witnesses the vessel got a list owing to the shifting of her cargo on the 13th, five days from that time she remained tossing about on the sea, the weather all the time being very bad, so much so that on one day the wheel was carried away, and yet although during these five days the crew were not able to get at the cargo to re-arrange it, the list never increased; and when at the end of that time they did get into the hold, they had no difficulty in re-arranging the cargo by shifting the bags from the port to the starboard side, and thus right the vessel sufficiently to enable her to get safely into harbour. Had the cargo been wholly in bulk, it would, in the opinion of the assessors, have been quite impossible to have done this, and in all probability the vessel would have gone over more and more until she had got upon her beam ends, in which case she would inevitably have been lost, as so many other grain laden vessels have been during the past winter. This is the opinion of the assessors. It should, however, be observed that this vessel had a beam of 31 feet as against a depth of hold of 18.5 feet, giving a proportion of depth to breadth of .61, and showing a much higher measure of stability than in many of the other cases which have come before the Court, and in which the vessels have gone over on their broadsides and have foundered.

No application and consequently no order was made in regard to the costs.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

 

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

GEORGE H. FORSTER,

Assessors.

 

 

THOS. BEASLEY,

 

L 367. 344. 100.-4/80 Wt. 47. E. & S.