Wreck Report for 'Conqueror', 1884

(No. 2131.)

CONQUEROR."

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Bristol, on the 22nd of March, 1884, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain WILSON and Captain KIDDLE, R.N., as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the supposed loss of the sailing ship "CONQUEROR," whilst on a voyage from Cardiff to Valparaiso.

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 ship, when she left this country in June 1883, was in a thoroughly good and seaworthy condition in every respect, and that she was not overladen, and that there is nothing to shew how she was lost.

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

Dated this 22nd day of March 1884.

 

(Signed)

H C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

R. WILSON,

Assessors.

 

 

JAMES KIDDLE,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Bristol on the 22nd of March 1884, when Mr. Macdonell appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Weightman for the owners of the "Conqueror." Five witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade, and examined, Mr. Macdonell handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Weightman then produced a witness, and having addressed the Court on behalf of the owners, and Mr. Macdonell having been heard in reply, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions on which its opinion had been asked. The circumstances of the case are as follow:—

The "Conqueror," which was a composite ship, belonging to the port of Liverpool, of 599 tons gross and register, was built at Middlesborough in the year 1866, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. George Neish Gardiner, of 48, South Castle Street, Liverpool, who was likewise the managing owner. She left Penarth Roads on the 6th of June last for Valparaiso, with a crew of fifteen hands all told, and a cargo of 927 tons of coal. Having discharged her pilot off Lundy Island, she proceeded on her voyage, and was next spoken on the 20th of the same month by a vessel called the "Craigmullen" in latitude 28° 55' N., and longitude 20° 24' W., but since then she has not been seen or heard of; and there can now be little doubt that she has foundered with all hands, and the object of the present inquiry is to ascertain, if possible, what was the cause of her loss.

Now the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether, when the 'Conqueror' left Penarth Roads on the 6th of June 1883, she was in a good and seaworthy condition, and well found in all respects?" It seems that the frames of the vessel were of iron, the upper portion of the planking being of teak, and the lower portion of elm, and that she had iron bulwarks; and she had the highest class both at Lloyd's and in the Liverpool Book. We are told that she was formely in the China trade, carrying teas and silks between Shanghai and this country, and between Shanghai and New York; but for several years past she had been employed taking coals to the West Coast of South America, returning generally with nitrate of soda. In 1877, when at Juanillas on the West Coast of South America, she was caught by one of the tidal waves so frequent on that coast, and in common with a number of other vessels, was almost entirely wrecked. Thereupon she was taken to Callao, and repaired at an expense of about 5,000l, but owing to their not being able to obtain any teak at that place, and to the work having teen inefficiently done, it was found necessary on her return to Leith o undo a great deal of it, in order to entitle her to be kept in her original class; and a further sum of 2,000l. had to be spent upon her for that purpose. In June 1881, and again in May 1883 just previous to her departure on her last voyage, she was surveyed by Lloyd's, and was continued in her class; and there can be no doubt that she was then in a thoroughly good and seaworthy condition, and well found in all respects. To use the words of the pilot, who took her out, and who had done so some six or seven times before, she was one of the finest ships that ever went out of Penarth Roads, and was much more like a yacht than anything else.

I will take questions 2 and 3 together, they are as, follow:—"2. Whether the cargo was properly stowed and trimmed?" and "3. Whether all proper measures were taken to prevent the cargo from shifting?" The foreman trimmer was not able to say whether on her last voyage she had been fitted with shifting boards; but all doubt on this point was set at rest by the evidence of Mr. Gardiner, junior, who told us that before her departure he had gone to Cardiff to see that the repairs had been efficiently done, and that she was properly fitted out and provisioned for the voyage; that he had remained there up to within three or four days of her taking in her cargo, and that before he left he saw them putting up the shifting boards, with which she was always fitted when she carried coal, and which served as dunnage for the nitrate which she brought home. He said that the shifting boards were placed on each side of the iron stanchions, and extended the whole length of the hold, not indeed to the keelson, but some distance below the hold beams. I may add that the master, who had been in her for twelve years, for the first four as mate, and for the last eight as commander, had carried a great many similar cargoes in her to the west coast of South America, and as we are told he was a very careful man, there can be no doubt, if, as we are told, she usually carried these shifting boards, that he would have seen that they were properly set up on this occasion. Nor is there any reason to think that the cargo was not properly stowed and trimmed. We were told by the master trimmer that there was a space aft capable of containing about fifty tons, and forward from one hundred to one hundred and fifty tons, the coals sloping down from the middle. There is therefore no reason to think that the cargo was not properly stowed and trimmed, and that all proper measures were not taken to prevent it from shifting.

I will take the fourth and fifth questions together; they are as follow:—"4. Whether the vessel was overladen?" and "5. Whether she had sufficient freeboard?" I have already stated that for several years past she had beep regularly employed carrying coals to the West Coast of South America, returning generally with nitrate of soda, and a statement has been laid before us by Mr. Gardiner, shewing the weights of the cargoes taken out and home on every voyage since 1878, the average duration of each voyage being about a year; from which it appears that on her last voyage out she carried less weight than on any of the previous voyages, having only 927 tons on board, whereas on each of the previous voyages both out and home she had carried cargoes ranging from that to 960 tons; and as she appears to have done so with perfect safety, the presumption would seem to be that she was not overladen on the last occasion. Her mean draft too on the last occasion was less than it had been on any of the previous voyages, being 16ft. Il 3/4in., whereas, on the previous voyages it had ranged as high as 17ft. 4in. And now let us see where her load line was placed, and what freeboard she had. We are told that until the last voyage her load line was placed at 3ft. 4 1/2in. below the deck, but that having a sister ship called the "Challenger" which had her load line at 3ft. 6in., Mr. Gardiner thought that it would be better that both vessels should have their load lines in the same position, and accordingly Mr. Gardiner, junior, told us that he directed the master of the "Conqueror" to alter the load line to 3ft. 6in., but he admits that he did not see it done. And now what was her freeboard on the last voyage. It appears from the midship section, which the owner has brought in, that the total depth at side amidships was 21ft. 6in., and deducting from this the mean draught 16ft. 11 3/4in., or say 17ft., that gives us a freeboard of 4ft. 6in. Now was 4ft. 6ins. a sufficient freeboard for this vessel. If we take the Board of Trade rules, we find that an iron sailing ship of 170 feet in length (this vessel was only 165 feet) should have 2.2 inches for every foot depth of hold, and as the hold was 18.1 feet deep, that would give us 3ft. 3 3/4in. What, however, would have been her freeboard by Lloyd's rules? I find from the dimensions given us that her co-efficient of fineness would be about .66; her moulded depth also, we are told, was about 19ft. 6in., and this by table D would give us 3ft. 8in. as the proper freeboard for a composite vessel of her dimensions. But this vessel had a freeboard of 4ft. 6in. Whether then we take the Board of Trade rules or Lloyd's rules, it is clear that she had an ample freeboard.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Whether the holds were provided with proper surface ventilation, and such as would be effective in all circumstances?" We are told that she had four ventilators, one forward, one amidships, and two aft, which would in our opinion be quite sufficient to carry off any gases that might be given off, by causing a current of air to pass over the surface of the coal. Being independent also of the hatches, they would be available, when the state of the weather might render it undesirable to have the hatches open.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "If the holds were properly ventilated, whether the ventilators were of such strength, and in all respects so constructed, fitted, and arranged, as not to be or to become a source of danger by affording ingress for the water to the vessel's hold in the event of her shipping a heavy sea?" Mr. Gardiner, senior, said that to the best of his belief the coamings on which the ventilators were fixed stood about four inches above the deck; but his son, who has charge of the out-door arrangements, and who would therefore have a better opportunity of knowing the heights of these coamings, said that they stood six to eight inches above the deck, and that when the weather was so bad that it was necessary to unship the ventilators, there were wooden plugs capable of being fitted into the coamings with tarpaulins to cover them over. The coamings were no doubt not so high as we are accustomed to see now, but there is nothing to show that they were not perfectly good and efficient. It was suggested by Mr. Macdonell, whether the coamings were not defective in having been made of cast instead of wrought iron; but the Assessors tell me that this would not necessarily be a source of weakness, for the requisite strength might easily be given by an additional thickness of metal. The ventilators themselves were of wrought iron, which is all that seems to be necessary; and apart from the lowness of the coamings there is nothing to lead us to think that the ventilators were in any way a source of danger, or would be likely to afford ingress for the water to the vessel's hold in the event of her shipping heavy seas.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "Whether all proper provisions were made for testing the temperature of the cargo?" It seems that the owner had supplied Captain Westlake with two thermometers, and in a letter written to him on the eve of his departure, and dated the 29th of May last, Mr. Gardiner tells him to "use every opportunity of giving plenty of surface " ventilation by opening the hatches, &c., to cargo, and " from time to time to test the heat of the coals with " the thermometers supplied." On inquiring, however, how it was proposed that he should use these thermometers in order to test the temperature in the body of the coal, it turned out that no special arrangements had been made for that purpose, either by inserting into the body of the coal the metal tubes recommended in the report of the Commissioners for inquiring into the spontaneous combustion of coal on board ships. Mr. Gardiner, however, said that the master could have tested the temperature forward by removing one of the chains from the chain locker, and then lowering the thermometers down it, an operation, however, which we are told would have taken some two or three hours to perform, and that aft the thermometer might have been lowered down the empty space round the water tanks. This, however, would hardly have been a very satisfactory way of ascertaining the temperature in the body of the coal, not by any means so satisfactory as that which the Commissioners have recommended, and no doubt Mr. Gardiner will look to this in futures.

The ninth question which we are asked is "Whether the vessel and freight were insured for amounts exceeding their respective values?" Mr. Gardiner told us that the vessel had cost them originally the sum of 9,600l; but that it was their practice from time to time to deduct a certain amount for depreciation, and that at the time of her loss she stood in their books at 5,000l, and that that was the sum for which they had insured her. He also told us that since her loss he had made a calculation as to what would be her proper value, and that to arrive at it he had deducted 5 per cent. for depreciation every year, except in those years when they had occasion to recopper her, which would on an average be about every third year, and when they would have to spend about 375l. upon her, and that in those years they took off only 2 1/2 per cent. He stated that there was only one year, when they had not done this, and that was when they spent 5,000l. to repair her at Callao, and 2,000l; afterwards at Leith, and of which about 1,200l. had been disallowed by the underwriters, as not being for the repair of damage, but rather in enhancement of the value of the vessel; and that they had accordingly in that year not deducted anything for depreciation but had added 612l. to the value, considering that the work that had been done to her had to that extent increased her value. And he stated that the result of that calculation was to shew that at the time of her loss she was worth 5,206l., or about 206l. more than the value at which she stood in their books, and for which she was insured. On the whole we think that Mr. Gardiner has dealt very fairly with this question, and that 5,000l. was not too large a sum at which to insure her. Then as to the freight. We are told that it was at the rate of 22s. 6d. per ton, and amounted altogether to 1,050l. Of this 316l. had been paid in advance, leaving about 730l. to be received on the arrival of the ship at Valparaiso; now the amount, for which the freight was insured, was 750l., and that sum has we are told been since paid to them by the underwriters. No doubt, had the vessel arrived safely at Valparaiso and discharged her cargo, she would have had to pay out of the balance of freight to be received there, the wages and port charges at Valparaiso, all of which have been saved by the foundering of the vessel; so far therefore the owner will be a gainer. On the other hand, however, it must be remembered that she had on board provisions and an outfit for twelve months, in fact for the voyage out and home; and this we are told had cost them altogether about 1,050l. There was, however, no insurance on the stores and outfit, or in other words the 750l. insurance covered, not only the freight at risk amounting to 730l., but likewise the value of the stores and outfit, which would remain unconsumed after the completion of the outward voyage. And, under these circumstances, we think that there has been no over insurance at all in this case, either of the ship, or of the freight; and that on the contrary they were insured by the owners in amounts well within their respective values. We entirely agree with what Mr. Gardiner said that in the long run over insurance does not pay.

The last question which we are asked is, "What in the opinion of the Court from the evidence before them is the cause of the vessel not having been heard of, since she was spoken by the 'Craigmullen' on the 20th of June, 1883?" Mr. Wales, the Government Inspector of Mines for the South Wales District, has told us, and we could hardly have a higher authority on the subject, that the coal, with which this vessel was laden, and which came from the Ocean Collieries in the Rhondda and Ogmore valleys, gives off a large quantity of explosive gas in working, and that the mines are always worked with safety lamps; but that the gas passes off in the course of a few days. Now we were told that the cargo was shipped between 8 p.m. of the 28th and 4 a.m. of the 30th of May, the coal having been no doubt, as is usual in these cases, freshly wrought. The vessel, however, after she had got the cargo on board, lay in Penarth Roads until the 6th of June, waiting for her crew, and during that time the hatches would no doubt have been left open. She is next seen on the 20th of June by the "Craigmullen," but by that time, according to Mr. Wales, all danger of an explosion from gas would probably have passed away; and more over she was then on the edge of the north east trades, when she might reasonably expect to have fine weather, and would therefore be able to keep her hatches open Mr. Wales also told us that the coal from these collieries is very clean, and is peculiarly free from iron pyrites; he added that he had never known an instance of spontaneous combustion occurring in this coal. I think, therefore, that we may safely dismiss from our minds any suggestion that her disappearance is due either to explosion or to spontaneous combustion; and we must look to some other cause to account for her loss. We have seen that the vessel was bound round Cape Horn, and that in due course she would arrive there probably in the month of August, which would correspond to February in the northern hemisphere, when she might reasonably expect to encounter very stormy weather. She may indeed have come into collision with some other vessel, or she may have been overwhelmed in one of those furious gales, which are so often encountered in going round Cape Horn, and which are much more dangerous to vessels going to the west than to those coming east, as they have to beat against them. But to whatever cause her loss is due, one thing appears to be certain, and that is that it was in no way due to the owner. He did everything in his power to send her to sea in a thoroughly good and efficient condition, and well found in every respect; and it is clear from the letter of the 29th of May 1883, that he contemplated that on the return of the vessel to this country she would get twelve years more in the first class. There is no question of over insurance in this case, but everything appears to have been done to ensure as far as possible that she should perform her voyage in safety. One fact too ought not to be omitted. It appears that since she was built in 1866, she has had only two masters, John Davidson, who commanded her for the first ten years down to September 1876, and who, we understand, has since died; and Captain Westlake, who commanded her from that time until she was lost. Evidently, therefore, these gentlemen were well satisfied with the vessel and with her owner, and it is hardly likely that they would have remained in her for so long a time, unless she had been a good vessel, well kept up, and not overladen.

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

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

R. WILSON,

Assessors.

 

 

JAMES KIDDLE,

 

L 367. 1903. 150.—3/84. Wt. 73. E. & S.