Wreck Report for 'Liburnian', 1881

(No. 1079.)

"LIBURNIAN."

FINDING of a Court of Inquiry held at Galle into the loss of the ship "LIBURNIAN," of London, which capsized while being loaded in Galle Harbour on the 28th June 1881.

Thursday, 7th July 1881.

It would appear by the master's statement that, having discharged the cargo of coals, and having taken in some ballast, which he for certain reasons considered sufficient, he commenced on the morning of the 28th ultimo to take in cocoanut oil as homeward cargo.

The master attributes this casualty to the vessel being moored broadside to the wind, and therefore to it and the sea running in; but his own remark, that the force of wind was not more than a "whole sail" breeze, does not warrant such an assumption.

Had it been otherwise, and an unusual sea running in, it would have rendered it still more incumbent on the part of the master to have made more decided provisional arrangements than the evidence shews, to meet such circumstances.

The main reason given by the master, which led him to think his vessel was sufficiently ballasted, appears to arise from the circumstance that in Calcutta river this vessel had only 130 tons of ballast on board, although in such a tidal river as the Hooghly such ballast trim as would be given by 130 tons might be sufficient, other matters have had to be considered besides the different circumstances of wind and sea, one of which was the nature of the cargo taken in, which were pipes of oil weighing a ton each, got in by a derrick or a yard tackle, whereas in Calcutta the cargo consisted of grain in bags, passed into the vessel by hand. There is, however some conflict in the evidence as to the quantity of ballast on board this vessel at the time of the casualty.

The master states he had taken on board 23 boat-loads, whereas the second mate, who granted receipts to the boat tindals, speaks of only 17 boat-loads; and if 10 tons be taken as a boat-load, that reduces the ballast from 230 tons (as stated by the master) to 170 tons. This discrepancy, however, of what might really have been on board the vessel, instead of what was supposed to be, might be a mistake, but the evidence shows that stubborn facts presented themselves as warnings that the vessel was not properly ballasted, which it seems unaccountable were not heeded, to say nothing of what took place on the Saturday preceding, when the natives who were working in the hold were evidently alarmed; it will be sufficient to enquire as to what occurred on the morning of the casualty, when the weight of the first cask of oil was felt.

The testimony throughout goes to prove plainly that the vessel had not sufficient stability or ballast to enable even a cask of this oil being hoisted on board with ordinary safety or certainty, and therefore when the attempt was made the cask had to be lowered into the lighter again.

Although the master in his evidence passes over this fact, he states that the vessel "heeled at the time the "casks of oil were being taken in," and, further, that he had to send coolies down to arrange the ballast when the first cask was raised. The cause of this proceeding is made plain and specific by the evidence of the first mate (second witness), while that of the second mate (third witness) and the two able seamen, Hopkins and Sullivan (fifth and sixth witnesses), who were attending to the tackles on deck, shew the state of things more plainly still.

Under these circumstances, and in the face of such plain warnings, what was done simply some of the ballast on board was shifted from one side to the other, so as to balance the weight of the pipe of oil as it was being hoisted in, instead of at once getting more ballast; and notwithstanding all this, the master, instead of remaining on board, quits the ship after four casks had been got on board, leaving the first mate to carry on the work, which he does until at the hoisting in of the seventh cask, and then this fine vessel capsizes when a mere moderate squall passes by. It may be said that it is easy to judge after such a casualty of what should have been done to prevent it, but in this instance there was plain and sufficient warning given of what was wanted, and that warning was unheeded.

The Court therefore holds that the master had not sufficiently ballasted the ship, and that hence she was not in a fit state to have taken in cargo, and that the disaster occurred entirely by the master's carelessness and want of proper judgment; his certificate is therefore suspended for 12 months.

 

(Signed)

A. H. ROOSMALE COCQ, District Judge.

I concur.

 

(Signed)

DAN BLYTH, Nautical Assessor.

The master states that his certificate was lost with the ship.

 

(Signed)

A. H. ROOSMALE COCQ, District Judge.

True copy.

 

(Signed)

A. H. ROOSMALE COCQ, District Judge.

L 367. 849. 70.—8/81. Wt. 203. E. & S.