Wreck Report for 'Caesarea' and 'Strathesk', 1884

(No. 2250.)

"CÆSAREA" and "STRATHESK" S.S.

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Westminster on the 23rd, 24th, and 25th days of July 1884, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains BEASLEY and RONALDSON, and Rear-Admiral MORESBY, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the loss of the steam ship "CÆSAREA," of Southampton, and of the life of one of those on board her, through collision with the steam 'ship "STRATHESK," of Glasgow, off Cape La Hague, on the 27th of June last.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the collision was due to the said vessels not having stopped and reversed full speed, and thus brought their vessels to rest when they heard the whistle of the other and were ignorant of the direction in which she was coming, the fog at the time being so dense that it was not possible for them to see one another until they were too close to avoid a collision.

But, for the reasons stated, the Court will not deal with the certificates of any of the officers.

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

Dated this 25th day of July 1884.

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

THS. BEASLEY,

A. RONALDSON,

J. MORESBY, Rear-Admiral,

Assessors.

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 23rd, 24th, and 25th days of July instant, when Mr. Middleton appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Pyke for the owners, master, and officers of the "Cæsarea," Mr. Kennedy for the owners, and Mr. Baden Powell for the master of the "Strathesk." The mate of the "Strathesk" was present, but was not represented by either counsel or solicitor. Sixteen witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Middleton handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Two witnesses having then been produced by Mr. Pyke, and two witnesses recalled by Mr. Baden Powell, they addressed the Court on behalf of their respective parties, and Mr. Mears (for Mr. Middleton) having been heard in reply, the Court proceeded to give judgment upon the questions on which its opinion had been asked. The circumstances of the case are as follow:—

The "Cæsarea" was an iron screw steam ship, belonging to the port of Southampton, of 467 tons gross, and 250 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 120 horse-power. She was built at Glasgow in the year 1867, and at the time of her loss was the property of the London and South-Western Railway Company. She left Southampton at about 7.20 p.m. on the 26th of June last for St. Malo, with a crew of 19 hands all told, 11 passengers, and about 20 tons of general merchandize, and at 9.40 the same evening passed the Needles, when a S.W. 1/2 S. course was steered for Cape La Hague. We are told that at this time the weather was clear and fine and the sea smooth, and she proceeded at full speed, making about 12 knots an hour, until 10.35 p.m., when, the weather having become hazy, her engines were put at half speed, which gave her about 7 knots; but at 11.5 p.m., the weather having cleared up, she again proceeded at full speed. At 12.40 she entered a thick bank of fog, upon which the engines were put first at half speed and immediately afterwards at slow, and she proceeded from that time, making from 4 to 4 1/2 knots, until 2 a.m., when the whistle of another steamer, which afterwards proved to be the "Strathesk," was heard ahead or a little on the starboard bow. At this time the captain and the second officer were on the bridge; there were also two men on the bridge, one steering, the other attending to the steam whistle, and there was a third man on the topgallant forecastle looking out. In about two minutes afterwards the whistle was heard again, this time on the starboard bow; the vessel continued her course, still making from 4 to 4 1/2 knots, and in about two minutes more the whistle was heard for the third time, close on the starboard bow, upon which the master ordered the helm to be put hard a-starboard, and he had hardly done so when the masthead light of the "'Strathesk" was seen close at hand. The engines, were at once ordered to be stopped, and reversed full speed, but they had only time to stop them, but not to reverse them, when the "Strathesk" came into them, striking the "Cæsarea" on the starboard side in the way of the engine-room compartment. Finding that 'the vessel was fast filling, the master of the "Cæsarea" ordered the two remaining boats (the life-boat having been stove in the collision) to be got out, and all hands to get into them; and, thinking that all hands were in, he then jumped into one of them, and they pushed off; but soon afterwards, finding that one of the passengers, a French sailor, had been left behind, the master ordered the jolly boat to return to the vessel, but before they could reach her she had gone down stern foremost. As nothing could be seen of the seen of the unfortunate man, they pulled for the "Strathesk," were taken on board, and were landed at about 3 or 4 o'clock the same afternoon at Southampton.

The case of the "Strathesk" is as follows :—She is also an iron screw steam ship, belonging to the port of Glasgow, of 217 tons gross and 93 tons net register, and is fitted with engines of 50-horse power. She was built at Bowling, in the county of Dumbarton, in the year 1881, and at the time of the casualty which forms the subject of the present inquiry she was the property of Mr. Alexander Marshall Hay,. of No. 111, Union Street, Glasgow, and others, Mr. Hay being the managing owner. She left St. Helier's, in Jersey, at about 8.30 p.m. on the 26th of June for Littlehampton, with a crew of 11 hands all told, three or four passengers, and about 140 tons of potatoes, and having on board a Jersey pilot to navigate her through the Race of Alderney. Having cleared the island of Jersey, she was, at about 9.40 p.m., put on a N.E. by N. course, and proceeded at full speed, making about 9 knots, the weather at the time being clear and fine, the sea smooth, and there being no wind. At about 10 p.m. the weather began to get hazy, and at midnight there was a thick fog, but the vessel was kept at full speed, the engines being occasionally eased for a short time, until about 1.15 a.m., when the pilot, supposing that they had got through the Race, and that Cape La Hague bore south, distant about 4 miles, gave up charge, and left the bridge, and the vessel was thereupon put upon a N.E. 3/4 E. course by compass, which the master told us was equivalent to N.E. 1/4 E. magnetic. At 1.30 the weather was so dense that the engines were put at half speed, which gave her about 5 knots, and the vessel proceeded at that speed until a little before 2 o'clock, when a whistle, which proved to be that of the "Cæsarea," was heard a little on the port bow. At this time the chief officer was on the bridge, an A.B., who was the acting second mate, at the wheel, and a man forward on the look-out, the master being below in his cabin, and the pilot walking the quarter-deck abaft the bridge. Shortly afterwards the whistle was heard for the second time, and almost immediately afterwards the masthead light of the "Cæsarea" was observed a little on the port bow, upon which the chief officer ordered the helm to be put hard a-port, and himself helped to get it over; but, just as they had got it over, the green light of the "Cæsarea" was seen, upon which the chief officer telegraphed to the engine-room to stop, and reverse full speed; but very shortly afterwards the two vessels came together, the stem of the "Strathesk" striking the "Cæsarea" on the starboard side, abaft the bridge, at an angle of about 6 degrees, with the result which has been already stated.

These being the facts of the case, the first question which the Board of Trade have put to us is, "Whether, " having regard to the thick state of the weather, the " speed of both vessels was sufficiently reduced in, ac- " cordance with Article 13 of the Regulations for pre- " venting Collisions at Sea?" Article 13 is in these words: "Every ship, whether a sailing ship or a steam " ship, shall in a fog, mist, or falling snow go at a " moderate speed." It would seem that from about 12.40 a.m., when the fog became thick, the "Cæsarea's engines were going slow, making from 20 to 25 revolutions; and although we are told that they might have been put down to 16 revolutions without stopping, we are not prepared to say that 4 to 4 1/2 knots, which was the speed at which she was going, was not a moderate speed for such a vessel, seeing that she was a very quick vessel, and could, we are told, by reversing her engines, have been brought to rest when going at that speed within two ships' lengths. As regards the " Strathesk," the fog commenced with her at 10, and at midnight it was very thick. Her engines, however, were kept going at full speed, making about 9 knots, till half-past 1 o'clock, when they were put at half speed, and were kept at that speed, making about 5 knots, until just before the collision. Now, we are not prepared to say that, so long as she was in the Race of Alderney, it may not have been proper and necessary to keep her going at full speed to prevent her going on the rocks; but at a quarter past one o'clock, when the. pilot gave up charge, and when she was quite clear of the Race of Alderney, and some four miles to the north of Cape La Hague, there was no necessity for keeping the engines going at full speed, or even at half speed, and there is no reason, why they were not put down to slow. It was said by Mr. Baden Powell that it was necessary for her to be kept at 5 knots at least to make any way at all, for that she had a four-mile tide to contend against, and that if she had not been kept at that speed she would have been swept down upon the Alderney or Casquet rocks; but the vessel's course was N.E. 1/4 E.; whereas the tide was setting, according to Renouf the pilot, W. to N.W., and therefore across her course; and although the tide might carry her down channel to the westward, it would neither impede her progress nor set her on the rocks. We see no reason, therefore, why the engines of the "Strathesk" should not, as soon as she was clear of the Race, have been put at slow, as those of the" Cæsarea" were; and we think that she was not going at a moderate rate of Speed—at so moderate a speed as she ought to have been—considering the thick state of the atmosphere. It may be said that there is not much difference between the speed of the two vessels, but for a comparatively slow vessel like the "Strathesk" 5 knots would be a much greater relative speed than 4 to 4 1/2 knots for a quick vessel like the "Cæsarea;" and at all events the "Strathesk" was not going "slow," as she ought to have been, considering the state of the weather.

I will take the next four questions together. They are: "2, Whether it was the duty of the "Cæsarea," " having regard to Article 16 of the said Rules, to keep " out of the way of the 'Strathesk,' and did she take " proper steps for that purpose? 3, Whether each " vessel took proper steps to comply with Article 18 of " the said Rules? 4, Whether it was the duty of the "Strathesk' to keep her course, having regard to " Article 22 of the said Rules, and did she do so? And " 5, Whether, under the circumstances, the 'Cæsarea' " was justified in starboarding her helm, and the "'Strathesk' in porting her helm, at the time the " did so respectively." The case of the "Cæsarea" is that she was on a S.W. 1/2 S. course, and of the "Stratesk" that she was upon a N.E. 1/4 E. course; they were therefore crossing vessels, the "Cæsarea" having the "Strathesk" on her own starboard side, and the "Strathesk" having the "Cæsarea" on her own port side. It was consequently the duty of the "Cæsarea" to 'get out of the way of the "Strathesk" and of the "Strathesk" to keep her course. It is admitted that neither vessel complied with the regulation, that the "Cæsarea" did not keep out of the way, and that the "Strathesk" did not keep her course, the former having starboarded and the latter ported her helm just previous to the collision; and the question is whether they were justified in so doing as and when they did.

Now, the 18th Article of the Regulations says that " Every steam ship, when approaching another ship so " as to involve risk of collision, shall slacken her speed, " or stop and reverse if necessary." It is admitted that the "Cæsarea" heard the whistle of the "Strathesk" three times before she did anything to avoid the collision, and that the first order that was given was to starboard the helm, and that it was not until the masthead light of the "Strathesk" was seen, and when the two vessels were close to "one another, that the order was given to stop and reverse. So also on board the "Strathesk" it is admitted that nothing was done until the whistle of the "Cæsarea" had been twice heard; and then the first order given was to port the helm, and it was not until the light of the "Cæsarea" was seen and when the vessels were very close to one another, that the order was given to stop and reverse. Now, it appears to me that the decision of this Court in the case of the "Kirby Hall" and "City of Brussels," and in the more recent case of the "Foscolino" and "Venetia," have a direct bearing upon the present case; and I cannot do better than quote the words of the learned Judge of the Court of Admiralty in the case of the "Kirby Hall" and "City of Brussels," when the case afterwards came before him, and which will be found in the Law Reports, Prob. Div., Vol. VIII., page 78. He there says that the "Kirby Hall" was solely to blame for "not stopping her way on the water " when the whistle of the 'City of Brussels' was " heard the first time, instead of going ahead without " knowing where the 'City of Brussels' was, or what " she was doing"; and he adds, "We wish to state,. " with as much emphasis as possible, that those in " charge of a ship, in such a dense fog as was described " in this case, should never conjecture anything when " they hear a whistle in such close proximity as was " the case here, whether the sound appears to them to " come from a vessel approaching them or not. In the " dense fog, which is proved to have prevailed in this " case, those on board the 'Kirby Hall' were bound " not to speculate, but to bring their vessel to a stand- " still on the water at once." These remarks appear to me to be peculiarly applicable to the present case, for there was a very dense fog, and neither vessel stopped or reversed her engines until after the whistle of the other vessel had been heard, by the "Cæsarea" three times, by the "Strathesk" twice, and not until after the former had starboarded and the latter had ported her helm. Had they on hearing the whistle of the other ordered the engines to be reversed, so as to bring the vessels to a standstill, no collision would have occurred. Indeed, if only one of them had stopped and reversed on first hearing the whistle of the other, in all probability there would have been no collision; for we were told that the "Cæsarea," at the speed at which she was going, could, by stopping and reversing, have brought herself to a standstill within two ships' lengths, and that would have been sufficient for the two vessels to have cleared one another. In our opinion, therefore, both vessels are to blame for not having stopped and reversed their engines on first hearing the whistle of the other; they had no right to alter their courses, the "Cæsarea" by starboarding and the "Strathesk" by porting, until they knew what the other vessel was doing, and which way she was going.' It was said by the learned counsel for the "Cæsarea" that from the whistle of the "Strathesk" having been first reported ahead and afterwards on the starbroard bow, the master of the "Cæsarea" was justified in concluding that the "Strathesk" was crossing him from port to starboard, and that by starboarding he was getting out of her way; but, to use the words of the learned Judge of the Court of Admiralty, they had no right to speculate in such a dense fog as to the course on which the other vessel was; they ought to have brought her to a standstill at once.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "What was the cause of the collision?" The cause of the collision was that these two vessels, instead of stopping and reversing full speed on hearing the whistle of the other, chose to continue their courses until they came in sight of one another, and they were then so close to one another that a collision was almost inevitable.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "Whether " the master of the 'Strathesk' was on deck at a time " when the safety of the vessel required his personal " supervision?" According to the chief officer, the master left the deck before a quarter past one, and did not come up again until after the collision had occurred. The pilot also told us that he gave up charge at a quarter after one, that the master was not then on the bridge, and that in consequence he gave up charge to the mate. According to the master, he did not go down to his cabin till half-past one, but he admits that from that time until nearly two, or for about half an hour, he was below. In answer to the question as to what he was doing during that time, he said that he first pricked off his course on the chart, which took him a few minutes to do; and afterwards he had a smoke, adding that he was standing up all the time, as there was no accommodation for sitting down. Here then is a master, who, according to his own admission, goes into his cabin to have a smoke, and remains there for half an hour, his watch having commenced at 12 o'clock, the mate's watch having been from 8 to 12, his vessel at the time going at half-speed, and the fog so dense that a vessel could not be seen until they were close upon her, and too late to avoid a collision. It was suggested by Mr. Baden Powell that he had gone below to get a little rest to brace himself up for crossing the Channel; but the argument could hardly have been seriously advanced, for, in the first place, according to the master's own statement, he was not taking a rest, but was standing up all the time, and in the next place the vessel had, from the time of leaving St. Helier's until a quarter past one, been in charge, not of the master, but of the pilot. In our opinion the master of the "Strathesk" was not on deck at a time when the safety of the vessel required his personal supervision.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "Whether " at the time the vessel left St. Helier's, or between " that time and the time of the casualty, the master of " the 'Strathesk' was in a state of intoxication?" The mate has told us that, when the master came on board at St. Helier's, he was intoxicated, and that he was intoxicated up to the time of the collision; and he is supported in that statement by a seaman named Warren, whilst another seaman, named Ramsay, was not prepared to say whether the master was or was not intoxicated. On the other hand, there is the pilot, the chief and second engineers, as well as two or three of the seamen, who say that the master was not drunk. No doubt the balance of evidence is in the master's favour, but we all know how unwilling seamen are to confess that another person is intoxicated. There is one circumstance, however, which is hardly consistent with the master's perfect possession of his faculties, and to which it is necessary to call attention. We are told that, when the pilot gave up charge, the vessel was, by the master's directions, put upon a N.E. 3/4 E. course by compass, equivalent to N .E. 1/4 E. magnetic, the compass it is said having a deviation of 1/2 a point. Now, a N.E. 1/4 E. course magnetic, from four miles North of Cape La Hague, would take the vessel somewhat to the west of St. Catherine's Point, which is about 25 miles west of the Owers light ship, the point which they had to make to reach Littlehampton. And it is very difficult to understand why the master should lay a course so far to the westward of his port of destination, seeing that it was midsummer, and would be broad daylight at about 3 a.m. He told us that his reason for doing so was, because on the previous voyage he had steered a N.E. by E. 1/2 E. course, and had found himself far to the eastward of his port, and he determined, therefore, on this voyage, not to get too far to the eastward, and therefore put her on a N.E. 1/4 E. course. But on that voyage the state of the tide was totally different, for they had left St. Helier's some two hours before high water, whereas on the last voyage it was just high water at that place when they started. When, too, they were off Cape La Hague and the course was altered, it was just then high water in the Channel, and, as it would take them about nine hours to run from Cape La Hague to Littlehampton, they would have had the ebb tide setting them to the westward for about six hours, and the flood tide to the eastward for only three hours; so that, if they had kept that course, they would have found themselves set very considerably to the westward even of St. Catherine's Point. Why then such a course should have been steered seems incomprehensible. On the whole, however, the only conclusion to which we can come on the question of the master's intoxication is. that the charge, in the words of a Scotch verdict, is "not proven."

The ninth question which we are asked is, "Whether every possible effort was made to save life?" No blame seems to attach to the master and crew of the "Cæsarea" for the loss of the French sailor. The master was the last to leave the vessel, nor did he do so until he thought that everyone had left; when, however, it was found that one man had been left behind, he at once ordered the jolly boat to return to the ship to save him, but she foundered before they could get alongside. As regards the master and crew of the "Strathesk," it seems that immediately after the collision two of her boats were lowered into the water, not, however, apparently by the orders of the master, but by those of the mate and pilot. When, however, this had been done, the master refused to allow them to leave the side of the ship until he had ascertained what the state of his own vessel was. Then, however, the boats left, and met the two boats of the "Cæsarea" coming towards them. So far, however, as the life of the French sailor is concerned, no blame attaches to the master, or to any person on board the "Strathesk," for, even had the boats been sent off at once, they could not have saved him, as he went down with the vessel.

The 10th and last question which we are asked is, "Whether the master and officers of the 'Cæsarea' " or the master and officers of the 'Strathesk,' or any, " and which, of them are in default"? And it is added that "the Board of Trade are of opinion that the certifi- " cates of the master of the 'Cæsarea' and of the master " and mate of the 'Strathesk' should be dealt with" And first as regards the master of the "Cæsarea," no doubt he is to blame for not having at once stopped and reversed as soon as he heard the whistle of the "Strathesk," and it is to this partly that the collision is due. At the same time, he seems to have been on the bridge, actively attending to the navigation of the vessel, from the time that the fog set in until the collision; and if he is to blame, it is due to an error of judgment in not at once stopping and reversing full speed. So also the mate of the "Strathesk," who was the officer in charge of the bridge at the time, is to blame for not having stopped and reversed at once, as soon as he heard the whistle of the "Cæsarea;" he also was attending to the navigation of the ship, although it was not his watch on deck, and if he is to blame, it was only an error of judgment. And as it is not the practice of the Court to deal with the certificate of an officer for a mere error of judgment, we shall not deal with the certificates of either the master of the "Cæsarea" or the mate of the "Strathesk."

With regard however to the master of the "Strathesk," the case is somewhat different. We think that he is greatly to blame for having kept the vessel going at too great speed, having regard to the foggy state of the atmosphere, and, above all, for having remained below in his cabin smoking for about half an hour at least, when the safety of the vessel required his personal supervision, and when it was his duty to be on deck, it being his watch, and the weather intensely thick. Whilst then we think this man greatly to blame, the question is whether we have any power to deal with his certificate. The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, sect. 242 (2), empowers the Court to deal with an officer's certificate if "the loss or abandonment of or serious " damage to any ship or loss of life has been caused by " his wrongful act or default." No doubt it is possible that, if he had been on deck, the casualty might not have occurred, he might have stopped and reversed his engines in time; but it is not possible to say that the casualty "has been caused by his wrongful act or default." In the first place, as regards the speed at which she was going, it is quite possible that if the order had been given, as it ought to have been, to stop and reverse as soon as the whistle of the "Cæsarea" was heard, the collision would not have happened, or again, if he had been on deck, and had acted as the mate did, ported his helm first, and afterwards. given the order to stop and reverse, his fault would only have amounted to an error of judgment, and for that we should not have dealt with his certificate. On the whole, although we think that this master has been guilty of very grave misconduct in leaving the deck as he did, yet we are not able to say that his misconduct caused the cssualty; and, therefore, we are unable to deal with his certificate.

We cannot, however, conclude this case without calling attention to the very great contrast that the two vessels presented. On board the "Cæsarea" the master and second officer were on the bridge, there was a man forward on the look-out, another at the midship wheel steering, and a third attending to the whistle; and all appear to have been actively engaged attending to their duties. On board the "Strathesk" the condition of affairs was very different; the master, whose watch it was, was, and had been for at least half an hour before, down in his cabin smoking; and although the chief officer happened at the time of the collision to be on the bridge, it was not his watch, and the person who after the master would have had charge of the deck, had the chief officer not been there, was very unfit for the post; and, although called the acting second mate, he had been shipped only as an A.B., and at the time was steering the vessel. Nor was there anyone attending to the whistle; according to the master anyone did it, whoever happened to be nearest to it. If it be said that she was a small boat, and could have very few hands in a watch, there was all the more necessity for the master being on deck. Nor is this all. The "Cæsarea" seems to have been well. equipped, well manned, and well kept up; and both officers and men were intelligent respectable men, and gave their evidence in a clear straightforward way; and the owners, we are told, were. wholly uninsured. As regards the "Strathesk," all from the captain downwards appeared to be an indifferent lot, and the manager, Mr. Gow refused to say what the vessel had cost, what her value was, and for what amount she was insured, and we are therefore left in doubt whether she was or was not overinsured. Mr. Baden Powell told us that the owners had given to the Board of Trade full information on all these points, but that they declined to state it publicly. Counsel for the Board of Trade deny that the owners have done so; but, assuming that they have, the only conclusion to which we can come is that the owners have made certain statements to the Board of Trade which they are not prepared to verify- on oath in a court of justice. For the inference which the public may draw from the course which they have thought proper to pursue they are themselves alone to blame.

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

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

THS. BEASLEY,

A. RONALDSON,

J. MORESBY, Rear-Admiral,

Assessors.

LA 367. 2022. 170.—8/84. Wt. 36. E. & S.