Wreck Report for 'Empress' and 'Save All', 1883

(No. 1681.)

"EMPRESS" (S.S.) AND "SAVE ALL."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Grimsby, on the 8th and 9th of February 1883, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain CURLING and Captain REES, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the loss of the sailing ship "SAVE ALL," of Grimsby, through collision with the steamship "EMPRESS," of Hull, off the Spurn Lightship, on the 5th of January 1883.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the said collision was due to the master and crew of the "Save All," which was being overtaken by the "Empress," not having shewn a white light or a flare-up light to the last-mentioned vessel, as required by Article XI. of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, the night being so dark and misty that it was not possible for the "Empress" to see a small smack like the "Save All" without a light, in time to avoid a collision; and that no blame whatever attaches either to the master or to anyone on board of the "Empress."

The Court is not asked to make any order as to costs.

Dated this 9th day of February 1883.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

WILLM. CURLING,

 

 

 

R.N.R.,

Assessors.

 

 

T. BOWEN REES,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Grimsby on the 8th and 9th days of February 1883, when Mr. Muir Mackenzie appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Rollit for the owners and master of the "Empress," and Mr. Wintringham for the owners and master of the "Save All." Thirteen witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Muir Mackenzie handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Rollit then produced two witnesses, and the Court, having heard all parties, proceeded to give judgment on the questions on which its opinion had been asked. The circumstances of the case are as follow:—

This is a case of collision between the sailing vessel "Save All" and the steam ship "Empress," which occurred on the evening of Friday the 5th January last, off the Spurn Light Vessel, happily unattended with any loss of life.

The "Save All," was a dandy-rigged smack, belonging to the port of Grimsby, of 79 tons gross and register, and was the property of Mr. William Moss, of Hainton Street, Grimsby, who was also the managing owner, She had left the Fisherbank, some 240 to 250 miles from Grimsby, on the 3rd of January last, with a cargo of live fish, bound to Grimsby, and with a crew of 5 hands, besides a boy, who had gone with them for the pleasure of the voyage; and between 9 and 10 p.m. of the 5th they were nearing the Spurn Light, which bore from them S.W. 1/2 S., distant between 4 and 5 miles. The weather, which had been thick and hazy, had, we are told, then begun to clear up, and the vessel was under all sail, close hauled on the starboard tack, and heading S.S.E., the wind being very light from about S.S.W. In company with her was another smack called the "Dream," which had some short time before stood across her bows on the port tack, tacked, dropped astern, and having then come up on her port side, the two vessels were on nearly parallel courses, the "Dream" being a little astern. At this time the master of the "Save All" observed a bright light astern, but a little on the starboard quarter withal, and believing it to be only the light of a pilot boat, he went down into his cabin, leaving the deck in charge of the third hand at the helm, and the deck hand on the lookout forward, the mate and the cook being at the time below; the little boy, however, was also on deck. About ten minutes afterwards the man at the tiller or helm, hearing what he believed to be the ripple of the water under the bows of an approaching vessel, turned round, and for the first time saw a steamer, which afterwards proved to be the "Empress," coming up astern and close upon them; and he had hardly time to call the captain on deck before the "Empress" was into them, striking the "Save All" with her starboard bow on the port quarter, and making a complete wreck of her at that part.

We will now turn to the "Empress." She is an iron screw steamship, belonging to the port of Hull, of 1,080 tons gross and 706 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 125 horse-power. She was built at Kingston-upon-Hull in the year 1868, and at the time of the collision was the property of Mr. William Bailey of that place, he being also the managing owner. She had left Hamburgh at 6 a.m. on the 4th of January for Hull, with a general cargo, a crew of 20 hands, and 12 passengers; and at about 10 p.m. of the 5th was nearing the Spurn Lightship, which bore from them S.W. by S. 1/2 S., distant about 3 miles, the vessel at the time heading about S. 3/4 E. and making about 4 1/2 knots, with her engines going at half speed. The master and second officer were on the bridge, there was a man at the wheel, another man forward on the topgallant forecastle looking out, a third man on the forecastle unlashing the anchor, and a fourth man on the bridge with a line ready to take a cast of the lead. At this time the look-out man forward reported the red light of a vessel, which proved to be that of the "Dream," a little on the starboard bow, upon which orders were at once given to hard-a-port the helm, and the vessel had paid off about 3/4 of a point when the look-out man again reported another vessel, which proved to be the "Save All," without a light, right ahead, upon which orders were at once given to keep the helm hard-a-port and at the same time to stop and reverse full speed; and those orders were obeyed, but too late to prevent the steamer from striking the "Save All," with the results which we have already stated. On finding what had occurred the steamer at once lowered her boat, but in the meantime the crew of the "Save All" had succeeded in getting theirs out; and finding that the smack still floated, preparations were made to tow her into port, but soon afterwards it was observed that she was sinking, upon which her crew left her, and in about half to three-quarters of an hour after the collision she foundered. The "Empress" then took the crew of the "Save All" on board, and having proceeded to Grimsby there landed them.

These being the facts of the case, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Did the 'Save All' carry on the night of the collision proper lights in accordance with the Regulations for Preventing Collisions?" There was some discrepancy between the witnesses from the "Save All" as to whether the starboard light had been put in the fore rigging or on the rail, but they all swore very positively that both the lights were burning at the time of the collision, and their evidence is corroborated by that of the three witnesses from the "Dream," which had shortly before stood across the "Save All's" bows, and had then had an opportunity of seeing both her lights burning. Against this we have only the evidence from the "Empress," who would be quite unable to say whether the "Save All's" lights were burning before the collision, for they were approaching her in a direction from which the lights could not possibly be seen, and all that they could say was that the lights were not burning after the collision, which may very well have been, as they would probably be put out by the blow of the collision. But whether this be so or not, it is not possible to accept the negative evidence from the "Empress" in preference to the positive evidence from the "Save All" and the "Dream;" and we must therefore hold that the "Save All" was on the night of the collision carrying her proper regulation side lights, and that they were burning brightly at the time.

The second question which we are asked is, "Ought the master of the 'Save All,' under the circumstances, to have shown from her stern a white light or a flare-up light?" The course of the "Save All" was, as we have seen, S.S.E.; the course of the "Empress" before porting her helm for the "Dream" was S. E., and even after porting, and when the "Save All" first came into view, it was south. It is obvious therefore, there being a difference of only two points between the courses of the two vessels, and the "Empress" being astern, that the side lights of the "Save All" could not possibly have been seen from the "Empress." The "Empress" then being the overtaking vessel, and the "Save All" the overtaken vessel, this is the very case which Article XI. of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea was intended to meet; the words of the article being as follow:—"A ship which is being overtaken by another shall show from her stern to such last mentioned ship a white light or a flare-up light. It was consequently the duty of the "Save All," being the overtaken ship, to show to the "Empress," which was the overtaking ship, a white light or a flare-up light. It is admitted that she did neither, and we shall presently have to consider whether the excuse which she gives for not having done so is sufficient.

The third question which we are asked is, "Did the 'Empress' on the night of the collision carry her proper side lights?" On this point there has been a good deal of contradictory evidence. The master, second officer, and the four seamen, who were on the deck of the "Empress," all swear positively that the side lights were in their places, and were burning brightly at the time. On the other hand we have the evidence from the "Save All" and the "Dream" that they did not see them, or rather, I should say, that they did not see the red light, for two of them admit that they saw the green light, one, indeed, the mate of the "Save All" said that the light might have been burning brightly, but that the glass was dimmed by the mist or rain, which had been falling. As then in the case of the "Save All," I think we are bound to accept the positive evidence of the crew of the "Empress" that the lights were burning brightly, in preference to the negative evidence from the "Save All" and the "Dream" that they didn't see them. Moreover, it appears to us incredible that a vessel, so well appointed in every respect as the "Empress" seems to have been, should, when close to her port of destination, and when about to enter the river where she might reasonably expect to find the navigation crowded, be proceeding without her side lights. It is admitted that she had her masthead light burning, and why therefore not her side lights also. We have therefore no doubt, from the evidence before us, that the "Empress" had her proper side lights burning at the time of the collision.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Was a sufficient and proper look out kept on board the 'Empress' on the night of the collision?" It seems that the master and the second officer were on the bridge looking out, and that there was a look-out man stationed forward on the topgallant forecastle. We have also the fact that just before the "Save All" was sighted, the glimmer of the red light of the "Dream" was seen in sufficient time for the "Empress" to avoid her, which would seem to shew that there must have been a good look out on board the "Empress" when the "Save All" came in view immediately afterwards.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Ought the 'Empress' to have seen the 'Save All' sooner than she did?" It may seem at first sight somewhat strange that the "Empress," having seen the red light of the "Dream," should not also have seen that of the "Save All," the two smacks being both bound to the Humber, and apparently on parallel courses; but it must be remembered that the "Dream" had shortly before crossed the "Save All's" bows, tacked, and dropped astern, and that she had then run up on the "Save All's" port side, to do which it would be necessary for her to starboard her helm. It must also be remembered that the "Save All" having the "Dream" on her port side would be more likely to keep her wind than the "Dream," which had no vessel to leeward of her, and that the latter might very well have fallen off a few points, which would bring her red light in view of the "Empress," which was coming up astern of her. The "Dream" too might naturally have wished to edge away from the "Save All" so as to prevent the latter taking the wind out of her sails, and this again would bring her red light in view of the "Empress." But however this may be, another question to be considered is, whether the "Empress" ought not to have seen the "Save All," even without a light, in sufficient time to have avoided her; for as Mr. Muir Mackenzie has justly pointed out, Article XX. of the Regulations, says that, "Notwithstanding anything contained in any preceding Article, every ship, whether a sailing ship or a steamship, overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the overtaken ship." It was consequently the duty of the "Empress" to keep out of the way of the "Save All," if she could have seen her in time. Now the witnesses from the "Empress" say that the night was very dark and hazy, and that there was a drizzling rain at the time of the collision, which prevented their seeing the vessel sooner than they did. On the other hand, the witnesses from the "Save All" and the "Dream" say that, although the weather had been hazy, and there had been drizzly rain, it had then begun to clear up; two of them indeed said that it was a bright starlight night, but not so the master of the "Save All," who says that it had been thick with rain, but that it had begun to clear up, though there was still some little haze about. It is not very easy to say to which of these the greater credence is to be given, but we have the fact that the glimmer of the red light of the "Dream" was seen in time to avoid running into her, shewing in our opinion that there must have been a good look out being kept on board the "Empress" at the time, and that the "Save All" was not seen in time to avoid a collision. Although too the attention of the master and second officer of the "Empress" was called by the report of the look-out man to the fact that there was a vessel ahead without a light, they could not at first see her, owing to their being further off aft, than the lookout man, which is some evidence that the look-out man saw and reported it as soon as it was possible for him to do so. On the whole, the opinion to which we have come is, that on the balance of the evidence, the "Empress " saw the "Save All" as soon as she reasonably could have done.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "When the 'Save All' was sighted by the 'Empress,' were proper measures taken on board the 'Empress' to avert a collision?" When the "Save All" was first seen the "Empress" was under a hard-a-port helm, and what the master did on her being reported was to order the helm to be kept hard-a-port, and the engines to be stopped and reversed full speed; and we are at a loss to see what other or better orders he could have given.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "Is the master or any other, and which person on board the 'Save All,' to blame for the collision?" The master of the "Save All" has told us that when he saw the bright masthead light of the "Empress" he took it to be the light of a pilot boat; he did not wait to satisfy himself whether it was or was not the light of a pilot boat, but at once goes down into his cabin to smoke his pipe, leaving the deck in charge of the third hand and the deck chap, and from that time until the steamer is close upon them nobody seems to have troubled themselves to look for the light. Again, we have seen that, from the relative positions of these two vessels, the side lights of the "Save All" would not be visible to the "Empress," and that it was therefore the duty of the crew of the "Save All," under the provisions of Article XI. of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, to shew a white light or a flare-up light over her stern to the overtaking vessel; but she did nothing of the kind, and the master tells us that he did not then know that there was any obligation on him to do so; he had never heard of the article, and had not been brought up to do it. In our opinion blame attaches to the master of the "Save All," first, for having gone below before he had satisfied himself whether the bright light which he saw astern was the light of a pilot boat or the mast-head light of a steamer; and, secondly, for not having, in the then state of the weather, shewn a light over the stern to the overtaking ship, in accordance with the provisions of Article XI. of the Regulations.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "Is the master, or are, or is any, and which, of the officers o?? crew of the 'Empress' to blame for the collision?" In?? our opinion no blame attaches to anybody on board th?? "Empress." Nothing could be better than the arrangements and discipline on board that vessel. The master and second officer were on the bridge keeping a good look out; there was a look-out man stationed on the topgallant forecastle forward, there was another man at the wheel, there was a third man preparing to unlash the anchor preparatory to going into harbour, and there was a fourth man on the bridge aft with the line ready to take a cast of the lead when the order to do so was given. The chief engineer also told us that from 6.30 to 9.15 p.m. the engines were going "slow" or "easy," and that from 9.15 to the time of the collision they were at half speed, so that it is clear that she was proceeding with great caution. Nothing in our opinion could have been better than the way in which the "Empress" was being navigated.

Lastly, it is said that "the Board of Trade are of opinion that the certificate of the master of the 'Empress' should be dealt with," and Mr. Mackenzie added that, had the master of the "Save All" held a certificate, he should have made the same application as regards him. As regards the master of the "Empress," we have already stated that no blame attaches to him, and we shall therefore not deal with his certificate, and I understand that the application is only made as a matter of form, and not with any intention of pressing the charge. As regards, however, the master of the "Save All," we have already stated that we consider that he is entirely to blame for this collision; whether we should have dealt with the certificate had he held one is a matter upon which we are not required to offer any opinion.

The Court was not asked to make any order as to costs.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY, Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

WILLM. CURLING,

 

 

 

R.N.R.,

Assessors.

 

 

T. BOWEN REES,

 

L 367 1453. 150.—2/83. Wt. 171. E. & S.