Wreck Report for 'Cormorant', 1887

(No. 3117.)

"CORMORANT" (S.S.)

The Merchant Shipping Acts, 1854 to 1876.

IN the matter of the formal Investigation held at the Sessions House, Westminster, on the 14th of January 1887, before H. C. ROTHERY, Esq., Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captains RONALDSON and FRENCH, as Assessors, into the circumstances attending the stranding and loss of the steamship "CORMORANT," near Whale Chine, Isle of Wight, on the 21st of December 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 stranding and loss of the said ship was due to the wrongful acts and defaults of James Lowe, the master. The Court accordingly suspends his certificate for six months, but recommends that during the period of the suspension of his master's certificate, a first mate's be granted to him.

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

Dated this 14th day of January 1887.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur in the above report.

 

(Signed)

A. RONALDSON,

Assessors.

 

 

A. P. FRENCH,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Westminster on the 14th of January 1887, when Mr. Gwynne James appeared for the Board of Trade, Mr. Gibson for the owners, and Mr. Nelson for the master of the "Cormorant." Eight witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade and examined, Mr. James handed in a statement of the questions upon which the Board of Trade desired the opinion of the Court. Mr. Nelson and Mr. Gibson then addressed the Court on behalf of their respective parties, and Mr. James having been heard in reply, the Court proceeded to give judgment on the questions on which its opinion had been asked. The circumstances of the case are as follow:—

The "Comorant" was an iron screw steamship belonging to the Port of Leith, of 2,255 tons gross, and 1,466 tons net register, and was fitted with engines of 230 horse power. She was built at Whiteinch, in the county of Lanark, in the year 1881, and at the time of her loss was the property of Mr. John White, of Leith, and others, Mr. White being the managing owner. She left New Orleans on the 27th of November last with a crew of 33 hands and a cargo of about 1,200 tons of cotton, bound for Bremerhaven, and at 7 a.m. of the 20th of December following made the Eddystone, whence she continued her course up Channel, and at 10.54 p.m. of the same day passed the Start Point, distant about 3 1/2 to 3 3/4 miles. At that time she was steering a N. 67° E. course by the standard compass, equivalent, we are told, to a N. 58° E. course true, there being a total error of 9° on that course. After passing the Start the course was altered to S. 87° E. by the standard compass, equivalent to N. 82° east true, there being a total error of 11° on this course. The weather was then fine and clear, and the vessel proceeded at full speed, making, it is said, about 10 knots an hour, the wind at the time being light from the east. About ten minutes after 3 a.m. Portland Light came in sight, bearing about a point before the beam, and at 3.30 the light was abeam at the estimated distance of 15 miles. From there the vessel continued her course until 4.30 a.m., when it was altered a quarter of a point to the north, the reason given by the captain for so altering it being that he thought, when they were off Portland, that they were too far out, and he wanted to get nearer to St. Catherine's Point, whence he would take his departure up Channel. Shortly afterwards heavy banks of fog came down the Channel, varied by occasional breaks, but on the whole the fog seems to have continued from that time about the same until the vessel went ashore, and to have been generally so dense that they could not see more than about 50 yards ahead of the vessel. At 6 a.m. the course was again altered about a quarter of a point more to the northward, and the vessel continued her course until about 10 minutes after 7, when the captain went into the chart-room to prick off his position. Having come to the conclusion that they were then about 7 or 8 miles S.W. by S. of St. Catherine's Point, he came out again, and was proceeding to mount to the upper bridge, when he observed land ahead at a distance of only about 50 yards, upon which he at once gave orders to hard-a-port the helm, and to stop and reverse full speed; but before his orders could be carried out, the vessel struck forward, and although the engines continued to go astern for an hour or more, they failed to get her off. Ultimately they succeeded in saving nearly the whole of the cargo, but the vessel herself became a total wreck. The place where she struck is stated to have been between Whale Chine and Ladder Chine, on the south coast of the Isle of Wight, a little to the west of St. Catherine's Point.

Those being the facts of the case, the first question which the Board of Trade have asked us is, "What was " the cause of the stranding of the vessel?" I think we shall be better able to answer that question when we have dealt with some of the others.

The second question which we are asked is, "What " number of compasses had she on board, where were " they placed, and when and by whom were they " last adjusted?" She had four compasses, a polo compass, a standard compass on the upper bridge, a steering compass on the lower bridge, and an after steering compass. They had, we were told, been adjusted about 12 months since, at Greenhithe, by a gentleman from the office of Messrs. McGregors, the compass adjusters.

The third question which we are asked is, "Did the " master ascertain the deviation of his compasses by " observation from time to time?" And with it I will take the fourth question, which is, "Were the errors of " the compasses correctly estimated, and proper cor- " rections to the courses applied?" The master has brought in his Compass Errors' Book, from which it appears that he took special care to ascertain from day to day the deviations of his compasses by observation, and applied the proper corrections to the courses; and we could hardly have better proof that he did so than the fact that in laying his course from the Start he allowed for a total error of 11°, and that an observation which he took of the pole star at 4.30 a.m., after passing Portland, shewed that allowance to have been correct.

The fifth question which we are asked is, "Whether " proper measures were taken to ascertain and verify " the position of the vessel when Portland Lighthouse " was seen, at or about 3.30 a.m. of the 21st of Decem- " ber." The captain has told us that the only measures which he took to ascertain and verify the position of the vessel, when Portland Light was abeam, was to estimate the distance by observing that, whilst he could see the Higher Light, he could not see the Lower Light from the upper bridge, and that, he thought, shewed him that the vessel must be some 15 miles from the Light. But, as Mr. Nelson has very properly observed, a cast of the lead at that time would have shewn him whether his conclusion was correct, for, if he had been 15 miles from it, he would have got 32 fathoms of water, whereas if he had been only between 9 and 10 miles from it, as he probably was, he would have got only 27 fathoms. We cannot say, therefore, that the master did take proper measures to ascertain and verify his position when he was off Portland Light.

The sixth question which we are asked is, "Whether " safe and proper courses were set and steered there- " after, and whether due and proper allowance was " made for tide and currents?" In order to deal properly with this question it will, I think, be better to take the vessel's course from the Start. The course from the Start was, the master told us, N. 82° E. true, and that course, if it had been made good, would have taken her well clear, no doubt, of St. Catherine's Point. On leaving the Start, the tide, which was then running to the west, would, no doubt, tend to set her somewhat out; but when the tide changed, and more especially as she neared Portland, it would set her, as the captain has told us, towards the shore, and this would increase, as she approached St. Catherine's Point, when the tide had again, we are told, changed. It may be doubted, therefore, whether, if we allow for the set of the tide, that course would really have taken her clear of Catherine's Point. At the same time, if the weather had remained clear, so that he could have put her head off if he had found that she was getting inside the point, there would, perhaps, have been no objection to his steering that course. But at 4.30 a.m. the master altered the course a quarter of a point to the north, and again at 6 a.m. he altered it another quarter of a point, and these two alterations would probably have been sufficient, even without the tide, to have taken her inside St. Catherine's Point. The courses steered, therefore, were neither safe nor proper, and they were the less so when the weather became so thick that they could not see more than 50 yards ahead.

The seventh question which we are asked is, "Whether " proper measures were taken to ascertain and verify " the position of the vessel at 7.15 a.m. of the last " mentioned date, and whether the master was justified " in assuming that the vessel was then S.W. by S. of " St. Catherine's?" The master was not, in our opinion, justified in assuming, as he did, that the vessel was at 7.15 a.m. about seven miles S.W. by S. of St. Catherine's, and he took no steps whatever to verify his position at that time.

The eighth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the weather was thick, and if so, whether the master " was justified in neglecting to reduce the speed of the " vessel?" Some of the seamen stated that the weather was as thick at 4 a.m., when they came on deck, as it was at the time of the casualty; but we are disposed to believe the captain and officers that the fog did not come on until about 4.30. But even so, was the master justified in continuing his course for nearly three hours, when the fog was so dense that they were not able to see more than 50 yards ahead. It is said that although no orders were given to reduce the speed, the engineer, as soon as he heard the whistle going and knew therefore that they were in a fog, had reduced the pressure of the steam from 63 lbs. to 58 lbs.; and that this had had the effect of reducing the speed of the vessel from about 10 knots to about 8 knots; and Mr. Nelson has very imperiously argued, in opposition to the evidence of his own client the master, that the vessel was probably not going more than 6 knots during the fog, that is, from 4.30 to 7.15 a.m. But there is a fact that militates strongly against this theory, namely, that from 3.30 a.m., when she was off Portland, to 7.15 when she took the ground, she had in some way or other got over something like 44 miles of ground, and although no doubt they had the tide with them at the first part of the time, they would have had it against them as they neared St. Catherine's Point. It is clear, therefore, that she must have been going ten knots, if not more, the whole time, and that in our opinion was an unjustifiable speed, having regard to the state of the weather.

The ninth question which we are asked is, "Whether " the lead was used, and if not, whether such neglect " was justifiable?" Mr. Nelson has admitted that if the lead had been used when they were off Portland it would probably have shewn him that he was between 9 and 10 miles, instead of being as he imagined 15 miles from it; and that if it had been used when they were nearing St. Catherine's, it would have shewn him that he was out of his course. We think, therefore, that the neglect of the lead was in this case quite unjustifiable, more especially in the then state of the atmosphere.

The tenth question which we are asked is, "Whether " a good and proper look-out was kept?" We have no reason to think that a good and proper look-out was not being kept; but it was not a question of looking out, for no look-out, however good, could have seen sufficiently far ahead to prevent the vessel going ashore, with a fog so dense as then existed.

The eleventh question which we are asked is, "Was " the vessel navigated with proper and seamanlike " care?" in our opinion she was not. It has been said by Mr. Gibson, that probably this gentleman, with his long experience, was somewhat over-confident; we would rather say somewhat over-reckless. It was not good seamanship to keep his vessel going at full-speed in a fog so dense that they could not see more than 50 yards ahead of her, when the master was in ignorance of his true position.

I will now deal with the first question, namely, "What was the cause of the stranding of the vessel?" The stranding of the vessel was, in our opinion, due to her having been put on a course, after passing the Start, so as to pass too near to St. Catherine's Point, and to her having been kept on that course after the weather had become so thick; to a miscalculation of his distance when off Portland; and to the course having been altered at 4.30 and at 6 a.m., a quarter of a point each time to the northward. It was due also to his not having taken a cast of the lead to ascertain his true position, and to his having kept his vessel going at full-speed through this dense fog, when he could not see more than 50 yards ahead.

The twelfth question which we are asked is, "Whe- " ther the master and officers are, or either of them is, " in fault?" And it is added that "the Board of " Trade are of opinion that the certificate of the " master should be dealt with." There can be no possible doubt that the responsibility for this casualty rests with the master and with the master alone. We are told that he has had along and meritorious service; that he has been 21 years with the same firm; and that he has commanded vessels since 1875, without ever before having met with any accident. We cannot, however, shut our eyes to the fact that by his reckless conduct he has lost this large and valuable ship, which was entrusted to his care. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, and making due allowance for the high character which has been given to him, the assessors are of opinion that his certificate should be suspended for six months.

The Court, on the application of Mr. Nelson, agreed to recommend to the Board of Trade that during the period of the suspension of his master's certificate he should be allowed a first mate's.

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur.

 

(Signed)

A. RONALDSON,

Assessors.

 

 

A. P. FRENCH,

 

50022—28. 200.—1/87. Wt. 12. E. & S.