Wreck Report for 'Commander', 1884

(No. 2246a.)

"COMMANDER" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876, and the Shipping Casualties Investigations Act, 1879.

IN the matter of a Re-hearing by order of the Board of Trade, under Section 2 of "The Shipping "Casualties Investigations Act, 1879," of a formal investigation held before a Naval Court at Pernambuco into the circumstances attending the loss of the steam ship "COMMANDER," and which was heard at Westminster on the 13th day of August 1884, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains METHVEN and CASTLE, and Rear-Admiral PICKARD, as Assessors.

Report of Court.

The Court, having carefully inquired into the circumstances of the above-mentioned shipping casualty, finds, for the reasons annexed, that the loss of the said vessel was in its opinion not due to any wilful act or default on the part of William Joseph Newton, the master, and it accordingly orders his certificate to be restored to him.

The Court further, on the application of Mr. Kennedy, ordered the master's costs to be paid by the Board of Trade, counsel for the Board of Trade not objecting thereto.

Dated this 13th day of August 1884.

 

(Signed)

H.C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

R. METHVEN,

JOHN S. CASTLE,

BENJ. S. PICKARD,

Assessors.

Anne to the Report.

This case, which was originally an inquiry before a Naval Court at Pernambuco, came before this Court for a re-hearing on the 13th day of August instant, when Mr. Muir Mackenzie appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Kennedy for the master of the "Commander." The evidence taken before the Court at Pernambuco, as well as the protest made by the master of the "Commander" at Maceio were put in, and Mr. Kennedy having produced the master as a witness, and no witness having been produced by the Board of Trade, Mr. Muir Mackenzie handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Kennedy then addressed the Court on behalf of his party, and Mr. Muir Mackenzie having been heard in reply, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions upon which its opinion had been asked.

The case, as I have stated, was heard in the first instance before a Naval Court at Pernambuco, consisting of the Acting British Consul at that place, assisted by two masters of British merchant vessels, and a British merchant, and after hearing the evidence, the Court, on the 2nd of July last, found the master of the "Commander" to blame for the casualty, and ordered his certificate to be suspended for six months. Against this decision the master has appealed to the Board of Trade, and the Board being of opinion that there had been a miscarriage of justice, have ordered the case to be re-heard before this Court. The facts of the case, which are very brief, are as follow:—

The "Commander" was an iron screw steamship, belonging to the Port of Liverpool, of 1,579 tons gross, and 1,039 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 150 horse-power. She was built at Barrow-in-Furness in the year 1877, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. Thomas Harrison, of No. 18, Chapel Street, Liverpool, and others, Mr. Thomas Harrison being the managing owner. She left Maceio, in Brazil, in the afternoon of the 14th of June last with a crew of 29 hands all told, one stowaway, and a cargo of sugar and cotton, bound to Liverpool, and we are told that at 6.45 p.m. she passed the buoy at the entrance to the channel, whence a S. 1/4 W. course was steered till 7.15 p.m. The course was then altered to N.E. 1/2 E.; at 7.55 it was altered to N.E. 1/2 N., and at 8.40 p.m. to N.E. 3/4 N., and that course was continued until about 9.20 p.m., when the vessel was felt to strike something, and in about 5 minutes afterwards she struck a second time. Finding on sounding the holds that the vessel was not making any water, the vessel, after standing off the land for about 10 minutes, resumed her course, N.E. 1/2 N.; but at 10.15 water was found to be coming from No. 2 hold into the engine-room, upon which the vessel was put about to return to Maceio, but at 11 p.m., finding that she was fast filling, her head was laid for the shore, and at midnight she grounded on a reef, where she ultimately became a complete wreck. There were, however, no lives lost, the master and crew having taken to the boats, and got safely back to Maceio.

These being the facts o the case, the Board of Trade have put to us the following questions, viz. :—

1. Whether safe and proper courses were set and steered after leaving Maceio; and whether due and proper allowance was made for tides and currents?

2. Whether proper measures were taken to ascertain, and verify the position of the vessel from time to time, and particularly when the Maceio light was dipping?

3. Whether the fact of that light being in sight, and the bearing taken of it, rendered the use of the lead unnecessary?

4. Whether the vessel was navigated with proper and. seamanlike care?

5. Whether the master was guilty of a wrongful act or default? And it is added, that "the Board of Trade request the Court to confirm, alter or vary the decision of the Naval Court, as in their opinion the circumstances of the case may require."

Now we were told by the master that the courses, which he gave, were the courses by the standard compass; and that, whilst on a S. 1/4 W. course there was no deviation, on all the north-easterly courses there was a deviation of 11° or about one point; so that a N.E. 1/2 E. course by the standard compass would be equivalent to N.E. by E. 1/2 E. magnetic,. N.E. 1/2 N. to N.E. 1/2 E. magnetic, and N.E. 3/4 N. to N.E. 1/4 E. magnetic. We are told also that, after passing the buoy, she was kept going at full speed until she struck, making about 9 knots an hour. Now assuming that she ran about 4 miles in a S. W. direction, before she was laid with her head to the north-eastward, the courses which she is said to have steered after that would have been perfectly safe and proper courses, and would, had they been made good, have put her, when she struck, some five miles from the coast, and in some 16 to 18 fathoms of water. No doubt the vessel's position would have been different, if either these courses had not been steered, or if the standard compass had not on a north-easterly course had a deviation of 11° to the eastward; but all the witnesses agree that these were the courses steered, and the fact of the compass having had, on a north-easterly course, a deviation of 11° is very strongly confirmed by the entries in the master's deviation book. This book seems to have been delivered up by the master to the Court at Pernambuco, and to have been forwarded by the British Vice-Consul to the Board of Trade, by whom it has been produced before this Court; so that there can be no ground for saying that it has been tampered with, or that the entries therein had been made since the casualty, and with a view to meet the present case. The book contains entries of the observations for deviation made by the master during the two years that he has commanded this vessel, giving the deviation of his standard compass, and the latitude and longitude of the place of observation. It shews that it was the master's practice, whenever the weather permitted, to make observations for deviation morning and afternoon; the book is admirably kept, and reflects great credit on the master, the entries shewing when they can be relied on, and when for any cause they are doubtful. Now on examining the entries in this book we find that on each of the three previous voyages which he had made from Maceio the standard compass showed the same deviation, namely, 11° on a north-easterly course in those latitudes, diminishing, however, as the vessel got further north. The chief mate also stated that he took an observation of the sun on the day they left Maceio, and found the deviation on a north-easterly course to be 11°. With this evidence before us, it is not possible for us to say that the courses which are stated to have been steered were not steered; the fact, however, remains that the vessel did strike something, and with such force as to make a hole in her bottom, causing her to fill very soon afterwards. The master thinks that she must have struck upon some submerged wreck, but the evidence points rather to her having struck on some reef or bank and gone over it. The difficulty, however, is to say what reef or bank it could have been, there being no reef or bank marked on the chart, except close in to the land, whilst the evidence would seem to show that she must at the time have been about five miles from the land. It should be observed, however, that the charts which the master had, as well as those which the Court has before it, although called Admiralty charts, are from surveys by the Brazilian authorities, no survey of this coast having been apparently made by the British authorities; and the Court has no option but to say that, if the vessel did strike upon a reef or bank, it is one not laid down on these charts, and that the master therefore cannot be blamed for not having known of its existence.

But, whilst the Court is not prepared to say that the courses steered were either unsafe or improper, there is some ground for the remark made by the Naval Court at Pernambuco that the master was hugging the shore too closely. The vessel was bound, not as on the previous voyage to Pernambuco, but to Liverpool, and there was consequently no reason, so far as we can see, for his having at 7.55 p.m. altered the vessel's course a point nearer to the shore, and at 8.40 put her another quarter of a point in shore. Being bound direct to this country he should have kept well out, instead of hauling the vessel in, as he seems to have done; the more so as we are told that on this coast the current usually sets to the northward from March to September, attaining its greatest force of 48 miles a day, or about 2 miles an hour, in June and July, which would tend to set him towards the coast. Whilst, then, we are not prepared to say that safe and proper courses were not steered, or that the position of the vessel was not from time to time correctly ascertained, the master saying that on each occasion before altering the vessel's course he took the bearing of the Maceio Light, or that he ought to have taken a cast of the lead, seeing that, just before she struck, the light was said to bear S.W. by W. by standard compas, or W.S.W. magnetic; at the same time we are of opinion that there was a little want of care and seamanship in allowing the vessel to get in so near, as he admits he did, to the shore, when there was absolutely no necessity for it. We cannot, however say that his so doing was a wilful act or default contributing to the casualty; and under these circumstances the question is, whether we ought to vary or alter the finding of the Naval Court. This Court is naturally very unwilling to interfere with the finding of a Court constituted as the Naval Court at Pernambuco was, with two master mariners as assessors, and which has had the great advantage of seeing the witnesses and of hearing the case recenti facto. But, if we are of opinion that the finding is not justified by the evidence, it is our duty to vary it. Now. in our opinion, there is nothing to show that this casualty was caused by any wrongful act or default on the part of the master; and if so, the Court would have no power to deal with his certificate. Under these circumstances we think that the Court has erred in suspending his certificate, and we shall therefore order it to be restored to him.

Mr. Kennedy has asked for the master's costs against the Board of Trade. It appears to us that no blame attaches to the Board of Trade in respect of these proceedings; on the contrary, they have been, if anything, only too indulgent to the master, the vessel, which was a very valuable one, with her cargo of sugar and cotton, having been lost within a few hours of her leaving her port, with great risk to the lives of those on board, and without any very satisfactory account of the cause of the loss. Mr. Muir Mackenzie, however, seemed to think that the Court is bound to give the costs in accordance with the decision of the High Court, Probate and Admiralty Division, in the case of the "Arizona." I hardly think so; but as the Board of Trade raise no objection, the Court will accede to Mr. Kennedy's application, and give the master his costs.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

R. METHVEN,

JOHN S. CASTLE,

BENJ. S. PICKARD,

Assessors.

L 367. 2045. 170.—8/84. Wt. 36. E. & S.