Wreck Report for 'Friedeburg', 1883

(No. 1881.)

"FRIEDEBURG."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Sessions House, Westminster, on the 12th and 14th of July 1883, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Rear-Admiral PICKARD, Captain ANDERSON, and Captain REES, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the casualty which occurred to the sailing ship "FRIEDEBURG," off Cape Horn, on the 5th of March last, whereby three of her crew were washed overboard and drowned.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the casualty in question was due to a heavy sea having broken over her starboard side, after the fore sail and fore topmast staysail had been carried away, and when she had no head sail to prevent her from broaching to; but, although too deeply laden when she left Junin, having regard to the nature of the cargo which she had on board, and to the voyage on which she was bound, they are not prepared to say that the casualty would have been avoided had she been less deeply laden, and that no blame attaches to the master or officers for the loss of life which then ensued.

The Court does not make any order as to costs.

Dated this 14th day of July 1883.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

BENJ. S. PICKARD,

A. ANDERSON,

T. BOWEN REES,

Assessors.

Annex to the Report.

The "Friedeburg" is an iron sailing ship, belonging to the port of Liverpool, of 794 tons gross, and 760 tons net register, with an under deck tonnage of 679 tons. She was built at Glasgow in the year 1869, and at the time of the casualty which forms the subject of the present inquiry she was the property of Messrs. Tomlinson, Hodgetts, & Co., of Liverpool, Mr. Robert Davis, of No. 9, Romford Street, Liverpool, being the managing owner. She left Junin in Peru on the 5th of February last, with a crew of 16 hands all told, and a cargo of 1,058 tons of nitrate of soda, bound to Queenstown for orders. On the 2nd of March following the wind began to blow a fresh breeze from the W.S.W., which increased until the 5th, when they had arrived off the Diego Ramirez Islands, near Cape Horn. At this time the vessel was running dead before the wind, which was still blowing from about W.S.W., under main topgallant sail, upper and lower fore and main topsails, foresail, and fore topmast staysail, and making about 9 knots an hour. At 2 p.m. they furled the main topgallant sail and upper fore topsail, and reefed the upper main topsail, and at 8 p.m., as the wind was still increasing, the lower fore topsail was furled. At 11 p.m. a sudden squall struck the vessel, splitting the foresail and fore topmast staysail, upon which all hands were called, and having secured the sails forward, they went aft to take in the upper main topsail, with the view of bringing the ship to the wind. At this instant a very heavy sea broke over the starboard side, between the main and mizen rigging, carrying away the three boats, the bridge, the standard compass, the poop and forecastle ladders, and a portion of the topgallant bulwarks, and starting several of the stanchions, at the same time filling the decks with water. The captain at once called all hands aft, and, as the ship came to the wind, the lower main topsail yard broke in two, carrying away both topsails; upon which a boat sail was put into the mizen rigging, and she was brought to on the starboard tack. On subsequently mustering the crew it was found that three of the. hands, the carpenter, an able seaman, and an apprentice, had been washed overboard when the sea broke over the starboard side. The vessel remained hove to on the starboard tack until the morning of the 7th, when the wind having moderated they continued their voyage to England, where she arrived in due course, the vessel on the way home making about an inch of water every 24 hours.

These being the facts of the case, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether " the load line was so placed as to give the vessel suffi- " cient freeboard when loaded down to it; and whether, " when she left Junin, she had sufficient freeboard?" We are told that, since she had been in the possession of her present owners, she had made two voyages. On the first, which was from Liverpool to San Francisco and back under Captain Moys, she had returned with a cargo of 1,032 tons of wheat, and 25 tons of dunnage wood, making a total dead weight of 1,057 tons, and according to Captain Moys she then drew 16 feet 8 forward and 16 feet 11 aft, giving her a mean of 16 feet 9 1/2, and the water was very nearly up to the centre of the disc. On the second voyage, which was from Cardiff to Junin and back, under Captain Mackenzie, she had returned with nearly the same weight of cargo, namely, 1,058 tons of nitrate of soda, and according to Captain Mackenzie, she then drew 16 feet .6 forward, and 17 feet aft, giving her a mean of 16 feet 9, and the water we are told was just lapping the load line. If then we could fix the position of the load line, we should get, as nearly as possible, the freeboard which the vessel had on leaving Junin.

Now we were told by Captain Moys, who is at present the owner's overlooker, that when they purchased her, she had no load line, having previously belonged to foreigners, and that he had been directed by the owners to put one on her, and he said that he had put it at 3 feet 7, that being at he said about 2 1/4 inches for every foot depth of hold. Captain Mackenzie, however, who had sailed in her on the first voyage as chief mate, and had commanded her on the second voyage, stated that in his opinion the load line was at 3 feet 4. .Both. of them also stated that from' the time when the load line was first put on her it had not been moved. I accordingly directed the official log books and ship's articles for both voyages to be sent for, and on their being brought in it was found that. the load line was therein stated to have been at 3 feet 4 inches, upon which Captain Moys said that he thought he must have made a mistake, when he said that he had put it at 3 feet 7. Mr. John Needham also, the foreman of the Nelson Dock, Rotherhithe, where the vessel is now undergoing repairs, was produced, and told us that he had on that day measured the' distance between the load line and the line of the deck, and had found it to be 3 feet 5 1/2. On this evidence then we should have been disposed to conclude that the load line was at 3 feet 4 to 3 feet 5 1/2 below the deck, but other witnesses were produced whose evidence seemed to be quite inconsistent with the fact that the load line was so high on the ship's side. The first of those was Mr. McInnes, draftsman in the yard of Messrs. Stevens, of Glasgow, and the designer of the vessel, and he told us that from an examination of the plans on which the vessel had been built, he found her total depth at side amidships to be 20 feet 8 1/4, and if we deduct from this 16 feet 9, which is stated to have been her mean draft on leaving Junin, that would give her a freeboard of 3 feet 11 1/4. Again, two of Lloyd's surveyors, Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Davey, were produced, and they told us that after carefully measuring the vessel's side they had found it to be 20 feet 6 3/4 inches amidships, and deducting therefrom the mean draught 16 feet 9 inches, that would leave a freeboard of 3 feet 9 3/4 inches. Neither of these gentlemen had ascertained the position of the loadline, or measured its distance from the line of the deck; but if she had a freeboard on leaving Junin of 3 feet 11 1/4 or even of 3 feet 9 3/4, it is quite impossible that the water would have been lapping the loadline, as Captain Mackenzie says it was, if that loadline had been at 3 feet 4 or 3 feet 5 1/2. There must be a mistake somewhere, either the loadline was lower down than we have been told, or the depth of the vessel at side is not so great as that given to us, or the draft stated did not properly represent the water which she actually drew. The discrepancy indeed was so great that I thought it advisable to adjourn the inquiry for a day in order to give the Board of Trade an opportunity of producing evidence as to the exact position of the loadline.

On the resumption of the inquiry, Mr. Turner, the senior shipwright surveyor to the Board of Trade, and Mr. Samuel Warner, also a Board of Trade surveyor, were produced, and the evidence which they have given us is of the most important character. They stated that on examining the vessel they had found two discs cut into her on each side, the centre of one being at 3 feet 5 1/4 and of the other at 3 feet 6 1/2 below the place where the deck line was marked on the outside of the vessel; whilst, however, on the portside this deck-line was in its proper position, on the starboard side it was 3/4 of an inch too low, so that on the port side the centres of the discs were at 3 feet 5 1/4 and 3 feet 6 respectively below the line of the deck, whilst on the starboard side they were at 3 feet 6 and 3 feet 7 1/4. They told us that there was no paint on either of the discs to indicate which of the discs had been in use, but Captain Mackenzie, on being asked, told us that it was the upper one that had always been used whilst he had been on board the ship; but he was not able to say how it was that there were two discs oh each side, and Captain Moys was not there to give us the necessary information on the subject. Another fact was also spoken to by Messrs. Turner 'and Warner which must not be omitted.; they stated that on examining the keel they had found it quite straight up to Within about 20 feet of the stern post When it ran up about 2 1/2 inches; the result would be that, whilst the draft on the stern post shewed 17 feet, the vessel would actually be drawing 17 feet 2 1/2 inches aft. This may possibly explain some portion of the discrepancy; but however this may be, one fact is clear from the evidence of Messrs. Turner and Warner, namely, that on the port side the load line was 3 feet 5 1/4, and on the starboard side 3 feet 6 below the line of the deck; and if we assume, as I think we are bound to do on Captain Mackenzie's evidence, that the water was just lapping the load line when they left Junin, evidence which is strongly confirmed by Captain Moys, that with the same weight of cargo on board on leaving San Francisco the water was nearly up to the centre of the disc, it follows that the freeboard of the vessel, on her leaving Junin, must have been about 3 feet 6 or 3 feet 7, according as it was looked at on the port or on the starboard side.

And now let us see whether this was a sufficient freeboard for her. Taking first Lloyd's rules, we were told by Messrs. Jenkins and Davey, the two Lloyd's surveyors, that the co-efficient of fineness being 69, and the moulded depth 19 feet 8, her freeboard under Table D would be 3 feet 8 1/2 inches, to which, however, 1 inch would have to be added for deficiency of sheer, the sheer taken along the middle line being 2 feet 9 1/4 forward and 10 1/4 inches aft, giving a mean of 1 foot 9 3/4, whereas it should, according to the rules, be 2 feet 2 1/2 inches, which would make the total freeboard 3 feet 9 1/2. On the other hand they said that they should allow for the deck erections, which consisted of a poop 49 feet long, and a forecastle 24 feet long, about 2 inches, and a further 1 1/2 inches owing to the length of the vessel being equal to only 9 depths, making the total deduction of 3 1/2 inches, and thus leaving 3 feet 6 as the proper minimum freeboard; and in their opinion she ought not to have had less than 3 feet 6 freeboard.

In considering, however, the deductions which these gentlemen have made on account of the deck erections, and the proportion of length to depth, it should be remembered that the bulkheads on the fore part of the pocp, as well as on the after part of the forecastle, were of wood, having doors in them, and seem hardly to have been of that strong substantial character contemplated by Lloyd's rules; and although, no doubt, the tables have been framed "for sailing vessels whose " length does not exceed ten times its moulded depth," all that the rules say with regard to "vessels whose ratio " of length to depth is less than that assumed in " framing the tables," is that they "may, under special circumstances, be allowed a reduction in freeboard." The assessors think, therefore, that in deducting 2 inches for deck erections and 1 1/2 inches for proportion of length to depth, Messrs. Jenkins and Davey have taken off too much. Another fact also must not be forgotten; at the foot of Table D will be found a note in these words:— " Vessels engaged in the North Atlantic trade, sailing " to or from the Mediterranean or any other port, and " which may sail to or from or call at ports in British " North America, or the eastern ports in the United " States, north of and including Baltimore, from " October till March inclusive should have not less " than 10 per cent. greater freeboard than that given "in the above table." It was contended that that note applied only to the North Atlantic trade and not to a voyage round Cape Horn, but the assessors say that' if such a rule was required for a voyage across the North Atlantic it would be still more necessary for a voyage round Cape Horn, where vessels are liable to meet with even worse weather and heavier seas than in the North Atlantic. No doubt this vessel would be rounding Cape Horn in the early part of March, which would correspond to the early part of September in the northern hemisphere; but I am told that experience has shewn that it is a time of the year when very bad weather may not unreasonably be expected. On the whole the assessors are disposed to 'think that the freeboard which this vessel had on leaving Junin hardly came up to the minimum required by Lloyd's rules.

And now let us see what freeboard she ought to have had by the Board of Trade rules. We find that by these rules a sailing vessel of her length should have a free. board of 2.25 inches for every foot depth of hold, which would give her a clear side of 3 feet 5 1/2 inches. To this however an addition would have to be made for deficiency of sheer. According to Messrs. Jenkins and Davey she had a sheer forward at side of 3 feet 4 1/2, and aft of 1 foot 5 1/2 giving her a mean of 2 feet 5; whereas her normal sheer by the Board of Trade rules, at 20 inches for every 100 feet of length, would be about 3 feet; so that about 2 inches would have to be added to the freeboard on this account. Nor would any deduction have to be made for the poop or topgallant forecastle, the tables having been framed for vessels having those erections. Under these rules therefore the minimum freeboard which this vessel should have had is 3 feet 7 1/2, or somewhat in excess of what she had on leaving Junin.

In considering, however, whether the vessel was or was not too deeply laden, it is important to bear in mind, not the freeboard only, but the weight and character of the cargo which she had in her, and the voyage on which she was bound. Now we were told that the cargo consisted of 1,058 tons of nitrate of soda besides about 4 or 5 tons of dunnage wood, making a total of 1,062 to 1,063 tons; and that it was stowed like iron or ore upon a platform in the middle of the ship. According to the crew it was a very heavy and a very laboursome cargo, and rendered the vessel very uneasy and very difficult to manage in a sea way. Mr. Davis, the managing owner, stated that being less than 50 per cent. above the registered tonnage, he did not think that it would have been too much for her; but the registered tonnage is not a proper index of the carrying capacity of a vessel; and if we compared the weight on board, as we should do, with the under deck tonnage, we should find that it was 56 per cent. above it. The voyage too round Cape Horn is notoriously one of the worst which any vessel can undertake. Very fortunately in the present case I have as assessors gentlemen two of whom are intimately acquainted with the locality, having been round Cape Horn on several occasions. And they tell me that, having regard to the weight and nature of the cargo which she had on board, to the voyage on which she was bound, and to the season of the year, they are of opinion that she was too deeply laden.

The second question which we are asked is, "What " was the cause of the casualty the vessel sustained " on the 5th of March last, and whether anything " could have been done to save the lives of the men " who were washed overboard?" The assessors think that the casualty was probably due to the fact that after she had lost her fore sail and fore topmast staysail, she had no head sails to check her from coming to; and that in yawing about, which it would be impossible to prevent her doing, she may have broached to slightly, and thus shipped this heavy sea over the starboard side. Whether, if she had not been so deeply laden, the casualty would have been avoided it is not possible for us to say, but it seems quite clear that nothing could have been done to save the lives of the men who were washed overboard, the fact not having been known until about 20 minutes after it had occurred.

The third question which we are asked is, "Whether " the vessel was navigated with proper and seamanlike " care?" In the opinion of the assessors the vessel was navigated with proper and seamanlike care, both before as well as after the casualty.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the master and officers are, or either of them is, in " default, and whether blame attaches to the managing " owner?" So far as relates to the navigation of the ship, no blame, as I have stated, appears to attach to the master or to the officers, who seemed to have handled her very skilfully. Nor does any blame attach to the owners for the condition in which she was sent to sea, the vessel being classed at Lloyd's; and the only question is, whether she was not too deeply laden. The learned counsel for the Board of Trade stated that he Was not prepared to say that she was too deeply laden, but I am bound by the opinion of the assessors, two of whom have had great experience of these seas, and they inform me that in their opinion she was; and the question is, who was responsible for having sent her to sea in that state. We have seen that on the first voyage the vessel had brought from San Francisco a cargo of 1,032 tons of wheat, besides 25 tons of dunnage wood, making 1,057 tons in all, and that she was then nearly, if not quite, down to the centre of the disc. The owners, however, seem not to have been fully satisfied with her performance, and accordingly, on the eve of Captain Mackenzie's departure, they wrote him a letter, which is dated the 15th of August last, and in which the following passage occurs:—"In comparison "with what our other ships carry, it appears to us that your vessel should carry 1,060 tons of wheat, " or 1,080 tons of nitrate, on a fair draught. We gather from Captain Moys' remarks that the vessel came home rather light the last voyage, and of course she had a number of lining boards which she will not have this time." That was an intimation to Captain Mackenzie, who had been chief officer on the preceding voyage, that they were not quite satisfied with the amount of cargo which she had brought back from San Francisco, and that they expected him to bring back about 30 tons more, which we are told would have the effect of sinking her some three or four inches deeper in the water. And seeing that with her former cargo she was nearly down to the centre of her disc, it is obvious that if sunk some three or four inches deeper, the load-line would have been under water. It is true that Captain Mackenzie did not take the whole 1,080 tons of nitrate of soda which he was instructed to do, and so far he acted wisely, but the owners cannot relieve themselves of the responsibility of having acted, to say the least, very indiscreetly by directing him to take on board some 20 tons more than she actually did bring home, and which would have had the effect of sinking her below her load-line. We think that blame does attach to the owners for the instructions which they gave to Captain Mackenzie.

At the conclusion of the judgment Mr. Baden Powell, on behalf of the owners, asked for the costs of the adjournment. Seeing however that the adjournment was due to the very unsatisfactory character of the evidence given on the first day, which made it necessary to adjourn the inquiry, in order to ascertain where exactly the load-line was, a point upon which the owners could have easily supplied us with full information, the vessel being in the Nelson Dock, Rotherhithe, undergoing repairs; seeing also that she has been found to have been too deeply laden, we shall not give any costs.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

BENJN. S. PICKARD,

A. ANDERSON,

T. BOWEN REES,

Assessors.

L 367. 1653. 150.—7/83. Wt. 73. E. & S.