Wreck Report for 'Earl of Dumfries', 1883

(No. 2002.)

"EARL OF DUMFRIES" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Cardiff, on the 29th day of November 1883, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains ANDERSON and DAVIES, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the stranding of the steamship "EARL OF DUMFRIES," on Guia Point, off Cape St. Vincent, on the 4th of August last, whilst on a voyage from Taganrog to Altona.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the stranding of the said vessel was due to the negligent navigation thereof by James Arthur, the master, in that he kept her from Cape St. Vincent on a course too near to the land, making no allowance for the probable set of the current from the Atlantic and the indraught into the Tagus between Capes Espichel and Raso; and that he neglected to take any cast of the lead to ascertain his true position, although the fog was so dense during the last 2 1/2 hours before she stranded, that they could not see the stem of the vessel.

For these wrongful acts and defaults the Court suspends the certificate of the said James Arthur for six months, but recommends that during the period of such suspension he be granted a first mate's certificate.

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

Dated the 29th day of November 1883.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

A. ANDERSON,

Assessors.

 

 

T. DAVIES,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Cardiff on the 29th of November instant, when Mr. Waldron appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Ingledew for the master of the "Earl of Dumfries." Five witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Waldron handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Ingledew then addressed the Court on behalf of his party, and Mr. Waldron having replied for the Board of Trade, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions upon which its opinion had been asked. The circumstances of the case are as follow:—

The "Earl of Dumfries" is an iron screw steamship, belonging to the Port of Cardiff, of 1,508 tons gross and 970 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 99 horse power. She was built at Sunderland in the year 1882, and at the time of the casualty which forms the subject of the present Inquiry she was the property of Mr. William Henry Martin, of No. 2, Dock Chambers, Cardiff, and others, Mr. Martin being the managing owner. She was in good condition, having made only five voyages since she had been built, and was classed 100 A1 at Lloyd's.

She left Taganrog in the Black Sea on the 22nd of July last, with a crew of 21 hands all told, and a cargo Of 1,875 tons of rye, bound to Altona. At Constantinople she took on board 6 passengers, including the master's wife and two of his children, and thence continued her voyage without accident until 2.30 p.m. of the 4th of August following, when she passed Cape St. Vincent at the distance of about half a mile; upon which she was put upon a N. 1/2 E. course magnetic to make Cape Roca, the weather at the time being fine, though rather hazy, and the sea smooth. From that time the vessel was continued at full speed, making from 8 to 8 1/2 knots an hour until 9 p.m., when they suddenly entered a bank of fog, upon which the engines were put at half speed, and the course was altered to N. 3/4 W. magnetic. From that time she was kept at. half speed, making from 6 to 6 1/2 knots until 2 a.m. of the 5th, when the fog became so dense that they could not see the stem of the ship, upon which the engines, were put down to slow, the vessel making from 3 to 3 1/2 knots. At 4 a.m. the second officer came on deck to take the watch, and was joined by the master, who had been below from 2 to 4; and in about 20 to 25 minutes afterwards the sound of breakers was heard, upon which the master immediately ordered the helm to be put, hard-a-starboard, and the engines to be stopped and reversed full speed; but it was too late, for in about a minute afterwards she took the ground. On sounding her forward it was found that the fore peak was full of water, and that there was about 8 feet of water in the fore hold; and in about one hour afterwards the engineer reported that the water was coming into the engine room. At daylight it was seen that they had gone aground on the rocks about half a mile to the westward of Guia Light, and immediately under Guia Fort. Assistance having been obtained from Lisbon, about 1,100 tons of the cargo was put into lighters, and after remaining on the rocks for 25 days she was got off and taken to Lisbon, there temporarily repaired and ultimately brought to Cardiff, where she now is undergoing repairs. We are told that the loss on the vessel through this casualty is about 12,000l., and upon cargo about 5,000l.

These being the facts of the case, the first question which we propose to consider is the second in the list submitted to us by the Board of Trade, namely, "Whether a safe and proper course was set and steered after passing Cape St. Vincent on the 4th August last, and whether due and proper allowance was made for tides and currents?" We have seen that they passed Cape St. Vincent at the distance of only half a mile, and from there the course steered was N. 1/2 E. magnetic, which is the bearing of Cape Razo from Cape St. Vincent, so that, if that course had been made good, it would have taken her just half a mile outside of Cape Razo, but in this there is no allowance for the set of the Atlantic current towards the coast, nothing for the indraught into the Tagus between Cape Espichel and Cape Razo, which is known to be very considerable, more especially on the flood tide. We are therefore unable to say that the course set and steered from, Cape St. Vincent was either a safe or a proper one, seeing that, if it had been continued, it would certainly have put her ashore inside of Cape Razo.

The third question which we are asked is, "Whether a safe and proper alteration was made in the course at 9 p.m. of the 4th August last, and whether due and proper allowance was made for tides and currents?" At 9 p.m. we are told that the course was altered from N. 1/2 E. to N. 3/4 W., which, if it had been made good, would no doubt have taken her some 12 miles outside of Cape Razo; but again there would be no allowance for the set of the Atlantic current to the east, or for the indraught between Cape Espichel and Cape Razo, which would be all the stronger from the fact that the vessel had already got too near the coast, owing to her having been kept from 2.30 p.m. to 9 p.m. on too easterly a course.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Whether the total neglect of the lead was justifiable?" Having put the vessel on a course which, owing to the set of the Atlantic current and the indraught into the Tagus, would necessarily take her near the shore, there was no justification for the master not having ordered a cast of the lead to be taken. Mr. Ingledew has very properly admitted that a cast of the lead ought to have been taken, but he has said that we ought to put ourselves in the position of the master, who thought he was so far out that he would get no soundings, if he did so. But that is no justification for the master, for he had no right to suppose that he would not have been set by the current to the eastward of his course. Moreover, with the weather so dense, that from 2 a.m. to the time she went ashore, they could not see the stem of the ship, it would be idle to trust to their seeing any of the lights on the coast, and the only way, in which he could ascertain his true position, would be by a cast of the lead. If, too, he had got no bottom, it would have shewn him that he was in a safe position; but a glance at the chart will shew that on the course on which he was, he would have obtained soundings during the last 20 miles at least, which would have shewn him that he was running into danger and during all that time he was going either half speed, or slow, so that there would have been no difficulty whatever in his doing so. In our opinion there is no justification whatever in this case for the neglect to take a cast of the lead.

I will now take the first question, which is, "What was the cause of the stranding of the vessel?" The cause of the stranding of the vessel is obvious. The master, in the first instance, put the vessel on a course which took her too close to the shore, and within the indraught of the currents; and when the weather became so dense that it was impossible to see the stem of the vessel, and when, consequently, the lights on shore could be of no use to him, he neglected to take a cast of the lead to ascertain his true position.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether a good and proper look-out was kept?" We have no reason to think that there was not a good look-out being kept, but in a fog so dense that they could not see the stem of the vessel, a look-out could be of very little use.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Whether the vessel was navigated with proper and seamanlike care?" For a master in a dense fog to navigate his ship, as this master did for so many hours. along a dangerous coast, without knowing his true position, and without taking any steps to ascertain it, was neither a proper nor a seamanlike course.

The last question which we are asked is, "Whether the master is in default?" and it is added that "the Board of Trade is of opinion that the master's certificate should be dealt with." In the present case the whole blame of course rests with the master. Here is a vessel, an almost new vessel, with a valuable cargo of nearly 1,900 tons of rye, which during the early morning of a summer's day is run upon a shore, where if the weather had not been fine, and the sea perfectly smooth, she would in all probability have speedily gone to pieces, with the loss of the lives of all on board. The loss to the owner, or to the underwriters is, we are told, about 17,000l., a sum for which the master can make no compensation whatever. it is a case in which, in our opinion, it is impossible for us not to deal with his certificate. It has been urged by Mr. Ingledew that it is a case of error of judgment, but it would be a very lamentable thing for the commerce of this country if this Court were to hold that the neglect to take a cast of. the lead under these circumstances was a mere error of judgment. In our opinion it was a default, for which it is our bounden duty to punish the master. Looking, however, at the very high character that he has received in his previous employments, we shall suspend his certificate for only six months, and shall at the same time recommend that he be allowed a first mate's certificate, so that he may not be deprived altogether of the means of earning his livelihood.

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

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

A. ANDERSON,

Assessors.

 

 

T. DAVIES,

 

L 367. 1774. 150.—12/83. Wt. 73. E. & S.