Wreck Report for 'Caledonia', 1886

(No. 2855.)

"CALEDONIA" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at Glasgow, on the 18th of March 1886, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains ANDERSON and COMYN, and Mr. LANG, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the loss by fire of the steamship "CALEDONIA," of Glasgow, in the English Channel, on the 13th 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 burning of the said vessel was due to the petroleum, of which the cargo consisted, and which had leaked from the casks, having been allowed to drop through a small hatchway in the top of the lower cross bunker on to the coals, and to a trimmer who had gone into the bunkers with a naked lamp, having allowed the lamp, or a portion of the lighted wick, to fall and set fire to the coals; and that Adolph Tofte, the master, and David Taylor, the chief engineer, are to blame for not having taken proper precautions to prevent the occurrence of such an accident, but under the circumstances the Court does not deal with their certificates.

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

Dated this 18th day of March 1886.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

ABSM. ANDERSON,

D. R. COMYN,

WM. C. LANG,

Assessors.

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Glasgow on the 18th of March instant, when Mr. Donald appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Spens for the owners, master, and officers of the "Caledonia." Eleven witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Donald handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Spens then recalled two of the witnesses, and having addressed the Court on behalf of his parties, and Mr. Donald 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 "Caledonia" was an iron screw steamship, belonging to the Port of Glasgow, of 1,509 tons gross, and 931 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 200 horse power. She was built at Sunderland in the year 1870, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. George Alexander Macbeth, of No. 23, Clyde Place, Glasgow, ship owner, and another, Mr. Macbeth being the managing owner. She left Batoum, in the Black Sea, on the 23rd January last, with a crew of 20 hands all told, and a cargo of 6,000 casks of petroleum, weighing about 1,046 tons, bound to Dunkirk. In coming through the Mediterranean she encountered strong head winds, but nothing particular occurred until about 1.30 p.m. of the 13th February following, when she was in the English Channel, and about 50 miles S.S.W. of the Eddystone. At this time a man named Olafsen, who had been trimming the coals in the bunkers, called out that the ship was on fire, and at the same time volumes of thick smoke were observed coming out of the port bunker hatch, the lid of which was off Orders were immediately given to bring along the hose, and water was poured down into the port bunker, but after about a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes, finding that they could make no impression on it, the hose was transferred to the thwart ship bunker hatch, from which volumes of smoke were also pouring. In the meantime, orders had been given to get out the boats, and finding that the fire was gaining upon them, the captain, at about 2.15 p.m., ordered all hands to get into the boats, and they pulled to a ship called the "Richard Kelsall," which had been signalled to stand by them. In about half-an-hour afterwards the ship was all in flames; at 3.30 p.m. the decks blew up, and at 5.30 p.m. the ship was on fire from end to end. They do not appear to have seen her go down, but there can be little doubt that very shortly afterwards she must have foundered.

These being the facts of the case, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether " the casks of petroleum taken on board at Batoum " were shipped in good condition; and, if not, whether " the master and mate were justified in taking them " on board?" It seems to be admitted that the casks in which the petroleum was contained were of a very inferior description, being made of soft Russian wood, and that when taken on board many of them were leaking badly. On seeing this the captain informed the shippers, who then sent on board a couple of coopers to repair the casks before they were put down into the hold. It is said that the master should have refused to take them on board in the condition in which they were, and no doubt it would have been wiser to have done so; but it would have been a strong measure for the master to refuse to take on board a cargo for which the owner had entered into a charter; and we are not prepared to say that he was not justified under the circumstances in taking them on board.

The second question which we are asked is, "Whether " the cargo was properly stowed and secured from " shifting?" We are told that the casks were stowed fore and aft, there being 7 or 8 tiers in the lower holds, and three in the 'tween decks. In the bottom of the main and after holds was soft sand ballast, and in the fore hold dunnage wood, and there were coigns between the tiers, so that the cargo seems to have been well and properly stowed and secured from shifting.

The third question which we are asked is, "What " was the cause of the petroleum leaking through the " 'tween decks on to the coal in the bunkers on or " about 13th February last?" It seems that forward of the engine-room bulkhead was a permanent cross bunker in the lower hold, communicating with the two side bunkers in the 'tween decks; above it was also a cross bunker in the 'tween decks, which communicated with the one in the lower hold by a hatch 4 feet by 2 feet, covered only with some loose open boards. There was therefore nothing to prevent the petroleum, which might leak from the casks in the 'tween decks, from running down this hatchway on to the coal in the lower thwartship bunker; and this is no doubt, how it got there.

The fourth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the chief engineer was justified in permitting Olafsen " to go into the bunker with a naked light?" We were told by the witness Samuel Gallagher, that when Olafsen was about to go into the bunkers to trim the coals he told him to wait until he had spoken to the chief engineer; that he then went and saw the chief engineer in his cabin shaving himself, and pointed out to him the danger there was of taking a light into the bunkers, but that the engineer told him that they could go in with naked lights as they had been accustomed to do. The chief engineer has distinctly denied that any such conversation took place, and he is to a certain extent confirmed by the master; he said that he dined in the cabin at 12, and after being there for about half-an-hour he went on deck, and remained there nearly until the time when the fire burst out. Now any statement coming from Gallagher is open to grave suspicion, as a letter has been produced, written at his request to the owner, in which he threatens that if they do not make him some compensation for his losses he will give some information to the underwriters and to the Board of Trade, which would be detrimental to them. What was the information which he intended to give we do not know, and he was not able to tell us. We do not therefore place any reliance upon Gallagher's statement; at the same it does not appear to us to alter the case very much. The chief engineer knew that the petroleum was dripping down into the lower cross bunker; he knew that the coals in that bunker were exhausted, and that it would therefore be necessary for the coal trimmers to go into the side bunkers to shovel the coals down into the cross bunker, as it was from that bunker only that they could feed the fires. Knowing this, and knowing as he must have done the very inflammable nature of the petroleum, he should have seen that the trimmers did not go into the bunkers with naked lights, and that if a light was necessary they should have taken a globe lamp.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "What was " the cause of the fire which broke out in the bunker " about 1.30 p.m. of the 13th February, and whether " every possible effort was made to extinguish it?" Olafsen has told us that he went down into the port bunker through the port bunker hatch on deck to trim the coals, and that when there he hung the lamp on a nail in the side of the bunker, and then went over to the starboard side to get a shovel, and that whilst there he saw that the coals on the port side had caught fire; upon which he returned to the port side making his way with difficulty through the flames, and got out of the port bunker hatch, burning his arm and singeing his hair in so doing; but he distinctly stated that he had not dropped the lamp nor set fire to the place. On the other hand, four of the crew stated that immediately after the accident Olafsen told them, either that he had dropped the light, or that in attempting to trim the wick some portion of it had fallen on the coals; and that no doubt was the way in which the place caught fire. Once, however, on fire it would be quite impossible to extinguish it.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the master, officers, and chief engineer, are or either " of them is in default?" and it is added that "in the " opinion of the Board of Trade the certificates of the " master, officers, and engineer should be dealt with." It is clear that the master must have known that the cargo was of a most dangerous description, he knew also that the casks were of a very inferior quality, and that they were leaking badly; it was therefore his duty to have taken every precaution that the petroleum should not get to the engine room, where it would be very liable to catch fire. We think, therefore, that he is to blame for not having seen that this little hatchway, communicating between the upper and lower cross bunkers was securely fastened up, so that any petroleum, that might leak out of the casks in the 'tween decks, should not run down on to the coals in the lower hold. As regards the chief engineer, knowing as he did that the petroleum was dripping down into the lower cross bunker, and that it would be necessary for the trimmers to go into the bunkers to trim the coal, we think that he is also very greatly to blame for not having seen that, if it was necessary for them to take a light into the bunkers, it should have been not a naked light, but a globe lamp, which would not be so liable to set fire to the petroleum. Under these circumstances we are of opinion that these gentlemen are to blame; it has, however, been urged by Mr. Spens that this is a new trade, with the special dangers of which they would be imperfectly acquainted, and that they were not responsible for the extreme badness of these casks. Looking at all these facts, although we are of opinion that there has been a great deal of carelessness on their part, we do not think that it is such a wrongful act and default as would justify us in dealing with their certificates.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

ABSM. ANDERSON,

D. R. COMYN,

WM. C. LANG,

Assessors.

L 367. 2634. 180.—3/86. Wt. 408. E. & S.