Wreck Report for 'Pactolus', 1886

(No. 2843.)

"PACTOLUS" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Newcastle-on-Tyne, on the 6th day of March 1886, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esq., Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains PARFITT and DAVIES, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the stranding and loss of the steamship "PACTOLUS," of London, on the rocks off the Ile d'Yeu, on the 11th ultimo.

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 and loss of the said vessel was due to the negligent navigation thereof by James Leask, the master, and it accordingly suspends his certificate for six months, but recommends that during the period of such suspension a first mate's certificate be granted to him.

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

Dated this 6th day of March 1886.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

WM. PARFITT,

T. DAVIES,

Assessors.

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Newcastle-on-Tyne on the 6th day of March instant, when Mr. De Hamel appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Bowey for the owners, and Mr. Greenwell for the master of the "Pactolus." Nine witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. De Hamel handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Greenwell then addressed the Court on behalf of his party, and Mr. De Hamel having been heard in reply, 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 "Pactolus" was an iron screw steamship, belonging to the Port of London, of 1,221 tons gross, and 787 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 150 horse power. She was built at Sunderland in the year 1883, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. Thomas Kish, of No. 65, John Street, Sunderland, and others, Mr. Thomas Kish being the managing owner. She left Glasgow on the 8th of February last, with a crew of 18 hands all told, and a cargo of 1,400 tons of coal, besides 180 tons in her bunkers, bound to Bordeaux; and at 3 p.m. of the 11th of the same month she sighted Belle Isle, off the Coast of Brittany. At this time she was on a S.E. by S. course by the pole compass, and that course was continued until 4 p.m., when they were abreast of the lighthouse on the western side of the island, which was then distant, we are told, some 8 or 10 miles; from there she was put on a S.E. by S. 1/2 S. course to make the light on the Ile d'Yeu, and she proceeded at full speed, making about 8 knots an hour, the weather being somewhat hazy during the whole day, sufficient to prevent their being able to take an observation. At 8 p.m. it was the master's watch, and he and the second officer went on the upper bridge, and there was a look-out man stationed on the top gallant forecastle; the vessel continued her course S.E. by S. 1/2 S., the weather being still hazy with occasional showers of small rain, and with a thick black pall overhead obscuring the sky, but clear along the horizon when it was not raining. At 9 p.m., the light on the Ile d'Yeu not having been seen, the second mate, by the captain's orders, went aloft to look for it, and after remaining there for about ten minutes, returned to the deck, and reported to the captain that he could see nothing of it. The vessel, however, continued her course, still going at full speed until 9.30 p.m., when a light, which afterwards proved to be that of the lighthouse on the Ile d'Yeu, was suddenly observed high up in the heavens, and about a point on the port bow. At first the second mate, as well as the look-out man, the captain being in the chart room at the time, thought that it was a star, but almost immediately afterwards breakers were observed ahead, and on the starboard bow, upon which orders were at once given to slow the engines, and at the same time to port the helm, but which was immediately afterwards altered to starboard. Whilst the vessel was coming round under her starboard helm she struck twice forward, but without stopping, upon which orders were given to stop the engines, and on finding that she was making water fast, the master, who was then on deck, at once ordered the boats to be got out, and in about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour from the time of striking all hands had got into the boats and left her, the vessel at that time being down by the head, and with a list to port. They remained alongside her for between 40 and 45 minutes, when she went down head foremost, upon which they pulled to the east side of the island and landed.

These being the facts of the case, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether proper measures were taken at 3 p.m. of the 11th of " February, and from time to time thereafter, to " ascertain and verify the position of the vessel?" We were told by the chief officer, whose watch it was at the time, that they sighted Belle Ile at 3 p.m., and that at that time the extreme westernmost point of the island bore about 1/2 to 3/4 of a point on their port bow, the course of the vessel by the pole compass being S.E. by S. At 4 p.m. they were abreast of the lighthouse on the west side of the island, and the captain tells us that he then took cross bearings of the extremities of the island and of the lighthouse by the pole compass, and estimated the distance to be about 10 miles. If, however, what the chief officer told us is to be relied on, that the westernmost point of the island was at 3 p.m. from 1/2 to 3/4 of a point on the port bow, and that they continued on the same course till 4 p.m., when they were abreast of it, it is clear that they would then be barely two miles from the island, although the mate says that he estimated the distance to be about 8 miles. What the distance really was it is exceedingly difficult, on the evidence before us, to say, whether it was 8 or 10 miles, or whether it was only 2 or 3 miles; all that we need say, however, is that bearings taken by a pole compass can never be relied on, and that it is quite possible in the then hazy state of the atmosphere that the master may have been mistaken in his estimate of the distance.

This then brings us to the second question which is, "Whether a safe and proper course was set at 4 p.m., " and whether due and proper allowance was made " therein for tide, current, or indraught?" The master has told us that, believing the vessel to be 10 miles off the island of Belle Ile when he passed it, he put her upon a S.E. by S. 1/2 S. course, which he thought would take her about five miles to the west and clear of the Ile d'Yeu. In laying that course he said that he allowed for 2° of easterly deviation on the compass, and for a set of from 2 to 3 miles to the eastward for the indraught or current. Now 2° of easterly deviation would in the run from Belle Ile to the Ile d'Yeu set him some 3 miles to the westward of his course, and would therefore about counteract the indraught or set of the tide to the eastward. In stating, however, that the pole compass had an easterly deviation of 2° on that course, we are disposed to think that the master has stated that which he knew to be untrue, for on looking at the deposition which he made before the Receiver of Wreck on the 19th of last month, soon after his return to this country, we find it says that on a S.E. by S. 1/2 S. course the pole compass had a 1/4 of a point of westerly deviation. The master tells us that after he had made his deposition, and when it was too late to correct it, he remembered that he had made the mistake of saying that the deviation was westerly and not easterly, but we are not satisfied that it was a mistake, and we are confirmed in that view by the copies of the deviation cards, which he has brought in, and which state that to make a S.E. by S. course magnetic you must steer by the pole compass S.E. by S. 1/4 S. full, which would shew westerly and not easterly deviation. And that this is so is further confirmed by the evidence given by the second mate, who told us that in talking over the course with the captain after 8 p.m. that evening, the latter told him that he had allowed half a point, namely, a quarter for the deviation, and a quarter for the set of the tide to the eastward, and, if so, a S.E. by S. 1/2 S. course by the pole compass would be equivalent to a S.E. by S. course magnetic. Now if a S.E. by S. course magnetic be laid down on the chart, even at a distance of 8 miles from Belle Ile, it will be found that it will take the vessel as nearly as possible on to the very spot where she struck, namely, on the N.W. point of the Ile d'Yeu. We have, therefore, no hesitation in saying that the course set and steered from 4 p.m. was not a safe and proper course, having regard to the westerly deviation of the pole compass, and to the set of the current to the eastward.

The third question which we are asked is, "Did the " weather become thick, and, if so, was the master " justified in neglecting to reduce the speed of the " vessel?" It is admitted that during the whole of the day the weather was more or less hazy, and that they were not able to get an observation of the sun; and that from 8 p.m. they had occasional showers of small rain, with a thick bank of cloud overhead. When the showers cleared up, we are told that they could see ships' lights at a considerable distance, but that overhead there was a thick black pall which obscured the moon and stars. Whilst, then, we are prepared to admit that there may have been no urgent necessity to reduce the speed of the vessel in order to avoid collision with other vessels, it appears to have been exactly the kind of weather which would be likely to obscure the light of the Ile d'Yeu, which is placed at a considerable height. When, therefore, they had gone so far as to bring them well within the range of the light, which is a very brilliant one, and is visible in clear weather at a distance of 18 miles, and they had not seen it, we think that the master was not justified in continuing his course at full speed, but he ought, having regard to the hazy state of the weather, to have reduced the speed of his vessel until he had clearly made out his position.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Was " the total neglect of the lead justifiable?" In our opinion the neglect of the lead was in this case quite unjustifiable. The master had put the vessel on a course which he knew, or ought to have known, would take her very near the Ile d'Yeu, and with the object of sighting the light on that island; and, not seeing that light, he had no excuse for not taking a cast of the lead, which would have shewn him at once his true position, the soundings along the whole of this coast being very gradual. If he had kept her in some 25 to 30 fathoms he would never have come anywhere near to the Ile d'Yeu. In our opinion the neglect of the lead was quite unjustifiable.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Was the " master justified in attempting to bring the vessel off " the Ile d'Yeu under the starboard instead of the port " helm?" The question seems to imply that he ought to have brought her off either under a starboard, or under a port helm, but in our opinion he ought not to have done anything of the kind. Seeing breakers on his starboard bow, and the light of the Ile d'Yeu on his port bow, and not knowing what dangers there were in that direction, his proper course was not merely to have slowed his engines, but to have stopped and reversed full speed, and come out in the opposite direction to that which he had gone in. That was the only proper course to take under the circumstances.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Was the " vessel navigated with proper and seamanlike care?" In our opinion she was navigated in the most improper and unseamanlike manner; first, in putting her upon a course, which, if continued must inevitably land her on the Ile d'Yeu; secondly, in continuing that course at full speed, until he had got amongst the rocks, notwithstanding the hazy state of the atmosphere overhead, which would be very likely to obscure the light; and thirdly, in taking no steps whatever by a cast of the lead or otherwise to ascertain his true position.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "What " was the cause of the stranding, and did the master " make every effort thereafter to save the vessel?" There can be no doubt as to what was the cause of the stranding. The vessel was put on a course which allowing for the indraught would take him direct for the Ile d'Yeu, and she was kept on that course, going all the time at full speed, although the weather was so thick overhead, that it was not possible to make out the light, until she had got in amongst the rocks on the N.W. point of the island. Nor indeed are the assessors satisfied that the master did everything in his power after she struck to save the vessel. We are not told where exactly it was that she was holed, but it was no doubt under the two forward tanks, as they seem to have filled first; and as we are told that they would together hold about 300 tons, and that the vessel when she left Glasgow was above 2 feet by the stern, the filling of those two forward tanks would about put her on an even keel, or perhaps a little by the head. Under these circumstances, and there being no water in the engine-room or in the after tank, the assessors think that, even if he had found it impossible to take her round to the east side of the island and there beach her, he should have put her ahead and run her on the beach where the chart shews some two or three fathoms, rather than have allowed her to sink in deep water, there being at the time no wind or sea such as would be likely to endanger the lives of those on board.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "What " was the cost of the vessel to her owners?" Mr. Kish has told us that she cost him and his co-owners originally 21,000l.

The ninth question which we are asked is, "What " was her value at the time she left on her last voyage?" Mr. Kish stated that, in his opinion, she was worth at that time 15,000l.; but we have a circular letter from Mr. Kish addressed to his co-owners, and which bears date the 20th January 1886, previous therefore to the departure of the vessel on her last voyage, and which is in these words:—"Dear Sir,—Owing to the depressed state of " the freight market, and the present low value of ship- " ping property, I find it will be absolutely necessary " to make a considerable reduction in the insurance of " the steamers under my management, and I propose to " insure the several steamers from 20th February next " as follows." Then follow the names of the vessels, amongst which we find the "Pactolus," which he proposes to insure at 12,000l. And then Mr. Kish goes on as follows:—"In the event of any of the steamers being " lost, I think I shall be able to replace them for the " sums for which I propose to insure them, and the large " saving of insurance would give me a better chance of " making the boats pay, as at present the heavy insur- " ance takes up all their earnings. If you agree to the " proposed reductions, I expect to make them pay better, " as I have still fair employment arranged for them." On the 20th of January last, therefore, Mr. Kish thought that he could replace the "Pactolus" for 12,000l., and that is also our opinion. The value therefore of a new vessel, equal in all respects to the "Pactolus," would at the time when she was lost be about 12,000l., and of course the "Pactolus" herself, having been running for about three years, would be worth something under that sum.

The tenth question which we are asked is, "What " were the insurances effected on her, and how were " they apportioned?" We are told that the vessel was insured by Mr. Kish from the time when she was built in 1883 to the 20th of January 1885 for 19,500l.; and from the 20th February 1885 to the same date in 1886 for 15,000l.; and that these were the only insurances on the hull and machinery. There was, however, in addition, a sum of 2,600l. insured on disbursements, premiums, and commissions, and 600l. on freight. The freight, we are told, was 280l. on the outward voyage and 440l. on the return voyage from Bilbao, for she was chartered, making a total of 720l.; but of that it is said that no part had been advanced.

Lastly, it is said that "In the opinion of the Board " of Trade the certificate of the master should be " dealt with;" and in that opinion we entirely concur. We are told that he has been 30 years at sea, and 16 years a master mariner, and that during the whole of that time he has never before met with any casualty. This being so, and taking into account his previous good conduct, we shall suspend his certificate for six months, and at the application of his counsel, Mr. Greenwell, we shall recommend to the Board of Trade that during the suspension of his master's certificate he be allowed a first mate's certificate.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

WM. PARFITT,

T. DAVIES,

Assessors.

L 367. 2622. 180.—3/86. Wt. 408. E. & S.