Wreck Report for 'Ida' and 'Martello', 1886

(No. 2935.)

"IDA" AND "MARTELLO" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Sessions House, Westminster, on the 25th and 26th of May 1886, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esquire, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain KENNEDY, Captain HYDE and Captain KIDDLE, R.N., as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the loss of the sailing ship "IDA" and one of her crew through collision with the steamship "MARTELLO," on the 6th of May 1886.

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 collision was due to Raymond Holdsworth, the second officer of the "Martello," in not having kept out of the way of the "Ida," as it was his duty to do. The Court, however, will not under the circumstances deal with his certificate.

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

Dated this 26th day of May 1886.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

H. C. KENNEDY,

 

 

 

GEORGE HYDE,

Assessors.

 

 

JAMES KIDDLE,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 25th and 26th of May 1886, when Mr. Davids appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Howard Smith for the owners, and Mr. King for the master of the "Martello," and Mr. Charles Hall, Q.C., for the owners, master, and crew of the "Ida." Eight witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. Davids handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Two further witnesses were then produced on behalf of the owners of the "Martello," and Mr. Hall, Mr. King, and Mr. Howard Smith having addressed the Court on behalf of their respective parties, and Mr. Davids having been heard in reply, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions, upon which its opinion had been asked.

The case of the "Ida" is as follows:—She was a sailing cutter, belonging to the Port of Falmouth, of 41 tons gross and register, was built at Falmouth in the year 1879, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. James Sampson Hicks, of Church Street, Falmouth, outfitter. Her usual occupation was going out to meet the inward bound ships, and thus obtain custom for her owners; and with that object in view she left Falmouth on the 4th of May instant, with a crew of four hands, and after cruising about she found herself, between nine and ten p.m. of the 6th, some 12 miles to the eastward of the Lizard. At this time, we are told, the weather was clear but dark, with some stars shewing, the wind was light from about S.E. by E., and the vessel was close hauled on the starboard tack, heading about E.N.E.. and making from 1 1/2 to 2 knots through the water. The captain and one of the hands were turned in, but there were two men, named Williams and Rogers, on deck, Rogers being at the helm and Williams walking backwards and forwards on the starboard side of the deck, looking out. At this time, we are told, that the masthead light of a steamer, which afterwards proved to be the "Martello," was observed about 3 points on the lee quarter, and from five to six miles distant; a quarter of an hour afterwards the steamer's green light came in view, shewing apparently that she was passing them to leeward. In about eight or ten minutes afterwards, however, the green light was shut in and the red light appeared, shewing that she had ported her helm, upon which Williams, after consultation with his mate, went down the companion stairs, got the flare-up, which was standing ready at the bottom of the stairs, and, having lighted it at a lamp on the cabin table, brought it up on deck, and exhibited it over the stern. The captain, who had seen Williams come down into the cabin and light the flare-up, shortly afterwards followed him, and on getting on deck saw the mast head and green lights of the steamer, at a distance of between 500 and 600 yards off. All three hands then began to shout, but the steamer continued to approach, and without altering her course or diminishing her speed, struck the "Ida" just abaft the rigging on the port side, running over her and sinking her immediately. All hands were at once thrown into the water, but Rogers, having succeeded in getting hold of the cutter's boat, assisted the master and Williams into it, but the fourth man could not be found, and there can be no doubt that he went down with the vessel. After pulling about for some time they made for the steamer, and were taken on board.

The case of the "Martello" is as follows:—She is an iron screw steamer, belonging to the Port of Hull, of 3,709 tons gross, and 2,439 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 400 horse power. She was built at Hull in the year 1884, and at the time of the casualty was the property of Messrs. Wilson, of Hull, Mr. Charles Henry Wilson being the managing owner. She left New York on the 20th April last, with a crew of 49 hands all told, and a cargo of about 4,000 tons, bound to Hull, viâ Gravesend; and at about 9 p.m. of the 6th of May instant passed the Lizard. The weather, we are told, was clear and dark, with some stars shewing, the sea was smooth, and the vessel was proceeding at full speed, steering S.E. by E. 1/2 E., and making about 12 knots an hour. It was the second mate's watch, and he was on the bridge; there was a man on the bridge alongside of him at the steam steering gear, and there was another man in the cage, which was just forward of the fore mast, and raised about 12 feet above the top gallant forecastle, looking out. After they had got some ten miles or so to the eastward of the Lizard the red light of a steamer was observed about 3 points upon the starboard bow, crossing their course, and heading to the N.W., upon which the second mate ordered the helm to be ported, until he had brought the red light upon his port bow, when he told the man at the helm to follow her up, which he did by starboarding his helm, until he had brought the "Martello" back to her original course, S.E. by E. 1/2 E. Just as she had got back to her original course, the sails of a vessel, which proved to be the "Ida," were observed by the look-out man right ahead, and distant as he has told us about 600 yards, and on his reporting it, the second mate replied "all right." Not seeing it the second mate gave no order then, but shortly afterwards the look-out man seeing, as he has told us, that they were approaching her, sang out again "Vessel right ahead — close to — hard-a-starboard." The mate accordingly at once ordered the helm to be put hard-a-starboard, and at the same time telegraphed to the engine room to reverse full speed, and just as they were close upon her, they saw the reflection of a light or flare-up from the "Ida;" but before there was time for the steamer to alter her course or to stop her way, she came into the cutter, running her down in the way already stated. As soon as the way had been sufficiently taken off, the "Martello" lowered her boat, but after pulling about for an hour without finding anyone they were signalled to return to the steamer. In the meantime the cutter's boat with three of the crew in her had reached the steamer, and the "Martello" then proceeded on her course.

These being the facts of the case, the first question upon which our opinion has been asked is, "Whether " both vessels complied with the Regulations for Pre- " venting Collisions at Sea." The "Martello" being a steamship, and the "Ida" a sailing ship, it was the duty of the "Martello" under the 17th Article of the Regulations to keep out of the way of the "Ida;" and it was the duty of the "Ida" to keep her course, and as she was an overtaken ship it was also her duty under Article 11, to shew from her stern to the approaching vessel, "a white light, or a flare-up light." Now the excuse, which the "Martello" offers for not going clear of her, is that the "Ida" did not shew a white light or a flare-up in sufficient time to enable her to do so. Let us proceed therefore to inquire how the evidence stands on that point. Both Williams and Rogers have sworn that, as soon as the green light of the "Martello" disappeared and the red light appeared, Williams went down to the cabin and brought up the flare-up, and exhibited it over the stern; and they are confirmed by the master, who said that he saw Williams come down into the cabin, light the flare-up, and carry it up on deck, and that a short time afterwards, but not immediately, he went up on deck, and that the "Martello" was then between 500 and 600 yards astern of them. If this evidence is to be believed, the flare-up must have been shewn from the "Ida," when the "Martello" was at least half to three quarters of a mile away, and therefore in ample time for her to have gone clear of them. On the other hand we have the evidence of the second mate and the look-out man on board the "Martello" that they did not see any light from the "Ida" until they were close upon her. But it is impossible for us to accept the negative evidence that the light from the "Ida" was not seen from the "Martello" until they were close upon her, in preference to that of the three witnesses from the "Ida" that the light was exhibited in sufficient time. But it was asked, Why did not the "Ida," seeing, as she admits she did, the "Martello" coming up astern for half an hour before the collision, give the "Martello" a longer notice by exhibiting her flare-up sooner? The answer, however, seems to be that, so long as the "Martello" continued to shew her masthead light and green light, she seemed to be going clear away to leeward of them, and there was consequently no risk of collision, and no necessity to shew a light; and it was only when the "Martello," by porting her helm for the other steamer brought her red light into view, that the necessity arose, and then no time was lost in shewing a flare-up. But apart altogether from the question of the light, we have the evidence of the look-out man that he saw the cutter's sails, when she was yet at a distance of 600 yards, and reported her, but that nothing was then done, and it was not until the cutter was reported a second time by the look-out man that orders were given to starboard the helm, and to reverse the engines. It appears to us that if the second mate had acted promptly on receiving the first report from the look-out man, and at once either ported or starboarded the helm, they would in all probability have gone clear. In our opinion the "Ida" complied with the Regulation, but the "Martello" did not.

I will now take the second, third, and fourth questions together; they are as follow:—(2) "Whether " the second officer of the 'Martello' complied " with the provisions of Article 18 of the aforesaid " Regulations?"

(3.) "Whether it was necessary, in the meaning of " Article 18, for the ' Martello's' engines to be re- " versed?" and (4.) "Whether, when the look-out " man on board the 'Martello' reported a vessel " ahead, the second officer was justified in ordering " the helm to starboard; whether he was justified in " ordering at the same time the engines to be reversed " full speed, and whether by reversing the engines the " previous order was nullified?" It is said that, this vessel having a right-handed screw, the reversal of the engines would counteract the starboarding of the helm, and that it was therefore an improper manœuvre on the part of the second mate to reverse the engines, and at the same time to order the helm to be starboarded. The mate, however, not seeing the vessel when he gave the orders, would not know how the vessel was heading, or at what distance she was; all that he knew was that there was a vessel ahead, and that the look-out man who saw her thought that the only mode of clearing her was by starboarding the helm. This being so, the assessors are of opinion that the second mate was quite justified in ordering the helm to be starboarded, and that not knowing how far off she was, he was also justified in ordering the engines to be reversed full speed. It is true that the reversing the engines might tend to counteract the starboarding of the helm, but the assessors think that the second mate would have incurred a serious responsibility if, when he was told that there was a vessel ahead, he had not ordered the engines to be reversed full speed on the chance of stopping the vessel's way, or at all events of diminishing the force of the blow. We do not think that the second mate was to blame under the circumstances for both starboarding the helm and reversing the engines full speed.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether " a good and proper look-out was kept on board both " vessels?" There seems no doubt that there was a good look-out being kept on board the "Ida," and that they saw the masthead light of the "Martello" when she was yet between 5 and 6 miles off, or for nearly half an hour before the collision, and afterwards the green light and then the red light. The "Martello," however, appears to us to be in this dilemma, either she saw the "Ida" when she was yet 600 yards off, as the look-out man tells us, and when, therefore, there was sufficient time to clear her, or she did not see her until she was close upon her, in which case there could not have been a good look-out on board the "Martello." It appears to us that a steamer has no right to be going at the rate of 12 knots an hour in a part of the channel where she might naturally expect to encounter a large number of vessels, without having the best possible look-out; and seeing that the mate's watch consisted of himself, the boatswain, and 9 hands, we think that, in addition to the look-out man in the cage, another of the crew should have been stationed right forward in the vessel's bows. The look-out man admitted that the first light which he saw of the steamer, to clear which they had ported, was her red light, and that she was then within about a mile and a half of them; and it was said that this was a proof that he could not have been keeping a good look-out, for that, if he had, he would have seen and reported the bright light at an earlier period. But however this may be, it appears to us that the fact that they did not see the "Ida's" flare-up as soon as it was exhibited, and when the vessels were yet from half to three quarters of a mile apart, shews that there could not have been a very good look-out on board the "Martello;" and the only way in which we can account for their not seeing the "Ida's" flare-up is by supposing that their whole attention was being directed towards the steamer for which they had ported their helm, and this view is confirmed by the fact that it was only just as they had returned to their original course, and when their attention would naturally have ceased to be directed to the other steamer, that they first caught sight of the "Ida."

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the masters of both vessels were on deck at a time " when the safety of the vessels required their personal " supervision?" There was no reason why the master of the "Ida" should not have been below at the time. And as regards the master of the "Martello," we are told that he had been on deck from four o'clock that morning until eight p.m. when he went into the chart room, but he had not turned in, and came out at once, as soon as he heard the second report. It is unreasonable to expect a master to be always on deck.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "What " was the cause of the loss of life from the ' Ida,' and " whether every possible effort was made by those on " board the 'Martello' to avoid it?" The man who lost his life was in his berth at the time of the collision, and there is no reason to doubt that he went down with the vessel, and that nothing could have been done to save him.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "Whether " both vessels were navigated with proper and seaman- " like care?" There is nothing, in our opinion, to shew that the "Ida" was not navigated with proper and seamanlike care. Not so, however, the "Martello," first, in not having had so good a look-out as she ought to have had, considering the speed at which she was going, and the place where the collision occurred; and, secondly, in a want of promptitude on the part of the second mate, in not acting at once upon the first report of the look-out man that there was a vessel ahead.

The ninth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the master of the 'Ida' and the master and second " officer of the ' Martello' are, or either of them is, in " default?" and it is added that "the Board of Trade " are of opinion that the certificate of the second officer " of the 'Martello' should be dealt with." As regards the masters of the "Ida" and the "Martello," no blame seems to attach to them. The blame for the casualty rests in our opinion with the second officer of the "Martello." His fault seems to have been in not keeping a sufficiently good look-out, and in not acting with sufficient promptness when the vessel was first reported. At the same time the assessors are of opinion that it is not a case in which his certificate should be dealt with.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

H. C. KENNEDY,

 

 

 

GEORGE HYDE,

Assessors.

 

 

JAMES KIDDLE,

 

L 367. 2715. 200.—6/86. Wt. 12. E. & S.