Wreck Report for 'Eskdale', 1883

(No. 1830.)

"ESKDALE."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Liverpool, on the .8th day of June 1883, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain PARISH, Captain KNOX, R.N., and Captain WILSON, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the material damage sustained by the sailing ship "ESKDALE," of Liverpool, and the loss of the life of one of her crew, off Cape Horn on the 6th March last, whilst on a voyage from Portland, Oregon, to Liverpool.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that, when the said vessel sailed on her last voyage, she was in a good and seaworthy condition, as far as her hull and equipments 'were concerned, and that her cargo was properly stowed, but that she was very deeply laden, considering the season of the year and the nature of the voyage on which she was bound; and that the damage and the loss of life were due to a very heavy sea breaking over her on the 6th March, but that she was navigated with proper and seamanlike care and skill, and that nothing could have been done to save the life of the man who was washed overboard.

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

Dated this 8th day of June 1883.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

ALFRED PARISH,

HENRY KNOX,

HENRY KNOX,

Captain, R.N.,

R. WILSON,

Assessors.

Annex to the Report.

The "Eskdale," which was an iron sailing ship belonging to the Port of Liverpool, of 1,314 tons gross, and 1,234 tons nett register, was built at White-haven, in the County of Cumberland, in the year 1873, and at the time of the casualty, which forms the subject of the present inquiry, she was the property of Mr. John Danson Newton, of No. 9, Exchange Court, Liverpool, and others, Mr. John Danson Newton being the managing owner. She left Astoria, at the mouth of the Columbia River, on the 19th June last, with a cargo of 1,771 tons of wheat in bags, and a crew of 28 or 29 hands all told, and with the master's wife and child on board, bound to Liverpool. On the 5th of March following, when off Cape Horn, she encountered a strong gale from the westward, but as the wind was favourable the vessel was kept running before it under close-reefed topsails. During the day the wind got more to the southward, and at about 4 a.m. of the following morning a heavy sea broke over her starboard quarter, which stove in the two after boats, and washed one of the men, who was engaged coiling up the main braces on the fore part of the quarter-deck, overboard. The vessel was still kept running before the wind and sea, and at about 8 a.m. the same morning at second and bigger sea broke over her, this time carrying away the wheel, except two spokes, the binnacle, the skylight, the companion, the two after boats, smashing the forward boats, lifting the tarpaulins from the main hatch, and throwing the vessel on her beam ends. We were told also that the same wave carried the master half way up the mizen mast, and that on his falling on the deck he became insensible, and remained so for about 36 hours. The mate thereupon took charge of the vessel, and by means of relieving tackles brought the vessel to on the starboard tack. Having' then .covered up the sky light and main hatch, and secured all the deck openings, finding that the vessel still lay over on her portside, rail under, they made their way through the cabin into the after 'tween decks, when they found that on the starboard side the cargo had shifted about a foot from the side towards the shifting boards in the centre, and on the port side only slightly from the shifting boards towards the side. They accordingly set to work at once to remove a portion of the cargo from the port side and to throw it overboard, and after thus disposing of some 70 to 80 tons from aft, she was got sufficiently upright for them to take soundings, when it was found that she had about 2 feet 2 inches of water in her. This was soon pumped out, and the vessel then ceased to make any more water. Gradually the vessel was brought upright, and when the gale abated she proceeded on her voyage, and arrived safely in this country.

These being the facts of the case, the first question upon which the Board of Trade have asked for our opinion is, "Was the load line of the vessel placed in such a " position on her side that she could have been loaded " down to it with safety?" It seems to be admitted in this case that the load line was at 4 feet below the line of the deck, and the question is, Whether, in the event of her being loaded down to it, she would have had sufficient freeboard?" Taking first the Board of Trade rules, we. find that a vessel of her length should have a freeboard of about 2.5. inches to every foot depth of hold, which would give her about 4 feet 7 1/4 inches. Next taking Lloyd's rules, we find that with a co-efficient of fineness of 65, and a moulded depth of say 23 feet 6 inches, table D would give us 4 feet 7 3/4 as the minimum freeboard for an iron vessel of.-her dimensions. No deduction is claimed in this case either for extra sheer or for extra camber, or for deck erections. Seeing then that by the Board of Trade rules the minimum freeboard which she ought to have had was 4 feet 7 1/4 inches, and by Lloyd's rules 4 feet 7 3/4 inches, it .is clear that if she had been loaded down to 4 feet, that is to the centre of her disc, she would not have had sufficient freeboard.

The second question then which we are asked is, " Was the 'Eskdale' overladen when she left Astoria?" According to the statutory notice which the master left with the consular officer at Astoria after the vessel had been fully laden, her draft then was 20 feet forward and 20 feet 2 inches aft, giving her a mean of 20 feet 1, whilst her freeboard is stated to have been 4 feet 2 inches; it is added, however, that on getting into salt water her freeboard would be 4 feet 6 inches. That there was some confusion here is, however, clear from what the master and chief officer told us, that her draft at Astoria in fresh water was 20 feet 3 forward and 20 feet 5 aft, giving her a mean of 20 feet 4, and that the water was then about 1 or 2 inches below the centre of the disc, giving her a freeboard of 4 feet 1 or 2 inches; and it then appeared that in entering the draft of water at 20 feet forward and 20 feet 2 aft, he had put it at that which he believed the vessel would have when she got into salt water, whereas in entering the freeboard at 4 feet 2 inches he had given it as that which she actually had at Astoria, and upon which she would, they said, rise about 4 inches on getting into salt water. It follows, therefore, both from the entries in the statutory notice, as well as from the evidence of the master and chief officer, that on leaving Astoria the vessel had a freeboard of 4 feet 2 inches, which on getting into salt water would rise to 4 feet 6. Seeing, however, that according to the Board of Trade rules 4 feet 7 1/4, and by Lloyd's rules 4 feet 7 3/4 inches, was the minimum freeboard which she ought to have had, it follows that with a freeboard of only 4 feet 6 inches she must have been very deeply laden.

The third question which we are asked is, "Was her " cargo properly stowed and secured against shifting?" As to that we are quite satisfied. She seems to have had shifting boards fore and aft, and perhaps there is no case that has ever come before us, in which the utility of shifting boards has been more clearly proved than in this case; for it was shown that the cargo on the starboard side, or at all events the two upper tiers, had shifted some 12 inches towards the centre, whilst the cargo on the port side had only shifted some 3 or 4 inches from the centre towards the side; had there however been no shifting boards down the centre, the cargo on the starboard side would have gone over to port, and nothing could then have saved the vessel; for, as it was, we were told by the chief officer that the bulwarks were some 6 feet under water. I think, therefore, that it may fairly be said that the cargo was properly stowed and secured from shifting.

I will take the fourth and sixth questions together; they are, "Was the master justified in running the ves- " sel so long before the wind on the 5th and 6th of March " last?" and, "Was the vessel navigated with proper " and seamanlike care?" The assessors are of opinion, seeing that the wind was favourable from the southward and westward, and the vessel's course to the eastward, that the master was quite justified in running before the gale, and that that is what they would have done under the circumstances. Seeing, too, that the vessel was, as we are told, at one time on her beam ends, with her lee rail 6 feet under water, it required very great skill and energy on the part of those in charge of her to save her from going down.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "What was " the cause of the loss of life, and the damage sustained " by the vessel on the 6th of March; and was the " weather such that any effort could have been made " to save the seaman, who was washed overboard?" " No doubt the loss of life and the damage sustained by " the vessel on the 6th of March was due to the very heavy " sea, which broke over her starboard quarter during the severe gale which she encountered off Cape Horn, and in which we are told that a large number of vessels were either lost or sustained considerable damage, a list of those vessels, extracted from Lloyd's List, having been laid before us by Mr. Young, the chief clerk to the Liverpool Underwriters' Association. The assessors are also of opinion that nothing could have been done to save the life of the man who was washed overboard; he appears not to have been seen afterwards, and to have brought the ship to, or to have lowered a boat in such a gale, would have been impossible.

The last question which we are asked is, "Was the managing owner, the master, or either of them, in default in regard to any of the above matters" As regards the navigation of the vessel no blame whatever, in our opinion, attaches to the master; but we have had some difficulty in saying whether blame did or did not attach to the managing owner as well as to the master, for putting so large a cargo in her, having regard to the season of the year and the nature of the voyage. And here I may observe that, if blame attaches at all in this case, it attaches to the owner equally with the master, for it seems that since she was built, the vessel has made 9 voyages from Oregon or California, with wheat on every occasion, with cargoes of nearly the same weight, except twice, when she had slightly heavier cargoes, and of these 9 voyages the last six had been under the same master. Both the owner, therefore, as well as the master, must have been fully aware of the quantity which would be put on board this vessel, and the freeboard with which it would leave her; and if blame attaches at all, it must attach to both. Now we have seen that, according to the statutory notice left by the master with the British Consul on leaving Astoria, she would have a freeboard on getting into salt water of 4 feet 6, and this is borne out by the evidence of the master and the chief officer. Admitting, however, that she would rise one inch more after leaving the bar of the river, and that her freeboard would then be 4 feet 7 inches, that is a quarter of an inch less than what the Board of Trade consider a minimum freeboard for a vessel of her dimensions, and three quarters of an inch less than what Lloyd's require. Are then the master and owner to blame, the one for having loaded, the other for having authorised her being loaded so deeply P On this point there is some difference of opinion between the assessors. Captain Knox and Captain Wilson think that the vessel, although deeply laden, was not overladen, being only slightly below the requirements of the Board of Trade and Lloyd's, and that consequently they are not to blame. Captain Parish, on the other hand, is of opinion that, looking to the nature of the voyage and the season of the year at which she would be rounding Cape Horn, and when it might reasonably be expected that she would meet with heavy gales, she was too deeply laden. It is true that she had already made several voyages with as large, and in two instances with slightly larger cargoes, and had arrived here in safety and without, so far as appears, meeting with any serious mishap; but in the opinion of Captain Parish it is tempting Providence to load a vessel, when bound on such a voyage, down below the minimum required by Lloyd's and the Board of Trade rules. It is fair, however, to the owner to say that he appears to have taken the greatest care to keep the vessel in a thoroughly good and efficient condition, and that she was manned in a most efficient way, being in in marked contrast to another case which recently came before us. Taking all these facts into consideration, we are not prepared to say that she was overladen or to pass any censure upon either the owner or the master; at the same time it is a question whether she would not. have been better had she not been so deeply laden.

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

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

ALFRED PARISH,

HENRY KNOX,

Captain, R.N.,

R. WILSON,

Assessors.

L 367. 1602. 150.—6/83. Wt. 73. E. & S.