Wreck Report for 'County of Edinburgh', 1887

M. 23935/1887

THE "COUNTY OF EDINBURGH."

MY LORD,

Wreck Commissioner's Office,

Royal Courts of Justice, London, W.C.

29th December 1887.

I BEG to send you herewith the report, with reasons annexed, of myself and the assessors in the case of a reference by the Board of Trade to the Court of Survey for Liverpool in the matter of the detention of the sailing ship "County of Edinburgh," which was heard at the County Court, Liverpool, on the 20th and 21st of December instant. Enclosed is a copy of the minutes of the proceedings.

I have, &c.

 

 

(Signed)

H. C. ROTHERY,

 

The Right Honourable

 

Wreck Commissioner.

The President, Board of Trade.

THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS, 1854 TO 1876.

The Court of Survey for Liverpool, held at the County Court, Liverpool, on the 20th and 21st days of December 1887.

In the matter of the detention by the Board of Trade of the sailing ship "County of Edinburgh."

I, Henry Cadogan Rothery, Wreck Commissioner for the United Kingdom, do report that having heard the above case, I did, with the concurrence of Sir Nathaniel Barnaby, the assessor appointed by the Board of Trade, and of Captain Robert Wilson, one of the assessors for the Court of Survey at Liverpool, for the reasons set forth in the annexed statement, order the said ship "County of Edinburgh" to be detained until she had been lightened so that her freeboard in salt water would be 5 feet 9 inches at the least.

Dated this 21st day of December 1887.

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concu in the above report.

 

NATH. BARNABY,

Assessors.

 

R. WILSON,

 

Annex to the Report.

This case was heard at Liverpool on the 20th and 21st of December 1887, when Mr. R. S. Wright appeared for the Board of Trade, and Mr. Kennedy, Q.C., and Mr. Pickford for the owners of the "County of Edinburgh." The circumstances are as follow:—

The "County of Edinburgh," which is an iron four-masted ship of 2,159 tons gross and 2,078 tons net register, belonging to the port of Glasgow, was built at Whiteinch, near Glasgow, in the year 1885, and is the property of Mr. Robert Craig, of No. 163, West George Street, Glasgow, shipowner, and others, Mr. Robert Craig being the managing owner. On the 13th day of December instant she was lying in the Alfred Dock, Birkenhead, laden with a cargo of 3,150 tons of salt, with which she was about to sail on the following morning for Calcutta, when Mr. Laslett, one of the Board of Trade surveyors for this port, observed that she had a freeboard of only 5 feet or 5 feet 1 inch, and thinking that it was not sufficient for her for the voyage on which she was bound, he reported the fact to Mr. Willcox, the principal officer, who at once signed an order for her detention, which was executed on the following morning. On the facts being brought to the notice of the Board of Trade, the Board referred the case to this Court under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1876, 39 & 40 Vict. c. 80. s. 6, subsection 6, and it is under these circumstances that it has come before us.

The proceedings commenced by the Board of Trade producing their witnesses; after which Mr. R. S. Wright asked "the Court to make an order " that the 'County of Edinburgh' be finally detained until and unless she " has been lightened to a salt water freeboard of 5 feet 9 inches." The owner then produced his witnesses, and two further witnesses having been produced by the Board of Trade, Mr. Kennedy asked that "the Court do " order the release of the ship with her present freeboard, or, in the alter- " native, with such modification of the freeboard required by the Board of " Trade as the Court shall see fit." There is thus no question before us as to the ship herself; she seems to be a first-class vessel, built under special survey and classed 100 Al at Lloyd's, and to be in all respects in a good and seaworthy condition; and the sole question, which we have to decide, is whether she was or was not too deeply laden at the time of her detention, and what her freeboard ought to be.

The case on the part of the Board of Trade is very simple; they rely on what are commonly called the Load Line Committee Rules; they say that the registered length of the vessel being 285.6 feet, her main breadth 42.5 feet, and the depth of her hold 24.3 feet, she would have a co-efficient of fineness of .716, or between .71 and .72, and as such ought under Table D. to have a freeboard at least of 5 feet 9 3/4 inches. To this, however, would have to be added for excess of the ship's length 1 3/4 inches, for deficiency of sheer 1/2 inch, for fall in sheer 1 1/2, and for the deck line being above the intersection of the deck with the ship's side 1 inch, making a total addition of 4 3/4 inches. On the other hand they would allow for excess in round of beam 3/4 inch, and for the deck erections 4 3/4 inches, or a total deduction of 5 1/2 inches, making the freeboard, which the Board of Trade consider to be absolutely necessary for her for a voyage to Calcutta, and without which she ought not to be allowed to leave this port, 5 feet 9 inches.

The owners in reply have produced a number of witnesses, and I propose to follow the course, adopted by Mr. Kennedy, and to arrange their evidence under three heads.

The first of these relates to the behaviour of the vessel on the two voyages which she has made since she was launched. The first of these voyages was from Cardiff to Bombay with coals, thence with salt to Calcutta, and home with jute and linseed; and the second was from Penarth to Bombay with coals, thence with salt to Calcutta, and home with grain. On this part of the case two witnesses were produced, the master and carpenter of the vessel who had been in her on both these voyages, and they told us that although as deeply laden as she is now, and with heavy dead weights cargoes, she had always, even in bad weather, which they occasionally met with, behaved very well. The master indeed stated that during the whole two years and more that he was in her she never took any water on deck except a little over the bows when meeting a head sea. On the ship's log book, however, being produced the entries therein did not seem to bear out the master's statement; for we find entry after entry saying that she was shipping great quantities of water, and that the decks were full of water, and this, too, when the weather was by no means so bad as to account for it. The captain endeavoured to explain away the effect of these entries by saying that it is a common practice with masters and officers, when making entries in the log book, to exaggerate the facts. That that is occasionally done in drawing up protests the Court is well aware; but that masters and officers of vessels should throughout the voyage systematically misrepresent the facts of the case and the state of the weather with a view to obtain for the owners a larger compensation from the underwriters than they were fairly entitled to, and that they should say that the vessel was shipping large quantities of water, and that the decks were full of water, when in fact she was not taking any water at all on deck, is what this Court is not disposed to believe. We think that entries in the log book, which were made at the time, are more to be relied on than the evidence which Captain Hood now gives us; and that the experience of the two former voyages tends to show that the cargoes which she then carried were, perhaps, somewhat too heavy for her, and may well account for her shipping so much water on those occasions.

The second set of witnesses comprised some old master mariners and marine surveyors, who had gone down and looked at the vessel, and without troubling themselves with any minute or complicated calculations on the subject, had come to the conclusion that 2 1/2 inches for every foot depth of hold would be a proper freeboard for her. The process by which they arrived at this result is what is generally known as the "rule of thumb" method, a very common way of estimating the freeboard before the Load Line Committee's Tables were issued, but which I had thought was now exploded. To show, too, the value to be attached to the evidence of some of these gentlemen, I may mention that one of them stated that he thought that 2 1/2 inches to the foot was quite sufficient freeboard, independent of what might be the vessel's length, and what erections she might have on deck. Two others also had, it seems, been witnesses in the famous case of the "Marlborough," and they were not prepared to deny that they had then sworn that in their opinion 3 inches to every foot depth of hold would be a proper minimum freeboard for a vessel of about the same length as the "County of Edinburgh," although that vessel was a steamer, and it is well known that a steamer requires less freeboard than a sailing vessel. But then it must be remembered that these two gentlemen were at that time the witnesses for the Board of Trade, whereas they are now the witnesses for the owner, which seems to make all the difference. To accept such evidence in preference to the results arrived at on a careful examination of the Load Line Committee's Tables is what this Court is not prepared to do,—tables which have been framed after the most careful inquiries by gentlemen thoroughly competent for the task. Speaking of this Committee, Mr. Justice Stephen in the case of the "Isle of Hastings" says that they were a "Committee which represented all the " interests affected, which was composed of officials of the Board of Trade, " and I think it was also said to have had upon it members connected with " the Admiralty; it also had persons connected with Lloyd's Committee, " and persons connected with various Insurance Societies. These people went " all round the country, and in particular they went all round the east coast, " the seaports, and after hearing a great deal of evidence, and after having a " great deal of discussion amongst themselves," they came to a conclusion as to what ought to be the proper minimum freeboard for different kinds of vessels; and that conclusion has since been adopted by Lloyd's, as well as by the Board of Trade. With these facts before us it is quite impossible that we can accept the vague and loose views of the owners' witnesses on this point in preference to the careful and well considered rules which have been laid down by the Load Line Committee.

The third set of witnesses are those who, whilst giving due weight to the Rules of the Load Line Committee, take exception to some of the allowances and deductions which have been made in this case by the officers of the Board of Trade; and the principal of these witnesses is Mr. Williamson, the builder of the ship. They admit the correctness of some of the calculations; for instance, they accept . 71 as the co-efficient of fineness, and indeed they could hardly do otherwise, seeing that it is really . 716, and therefore somewhat nearer to . 72 than to 71, and is so far in favour of the owner. They admit also the addition of 1 1/2 inches to the freeboard for excess in the length of the vessel, and 1/2 an inch for deficiency of sheer. They also accept the deduction of 3/4 of an inch for excess of camber. But they dispute the 1 1/2 inches claimed for fall in sheer, 1 inch for error in the marking of the deck line, and 4 3/4 inches for deck erections. I will deal with these several objections in their order.

First, then, as to the 1 1/2 inches for fall in sheer. According to the Board of Trade surveyors there was a fall in the sheer of 3 inches abaft the midship area, and for this one half the amount, or 1 1/2 inches, would by the Rules have to be added to the freeboard. It was stated, however, by the owners that, according to the plans on which the vessel had been built, the fall in the sheer abaft the midship section was only 2 1/4 inches, one half of which would be 1 inch, so that there would be an excess in this respect of 3/8 of an inch. But Mr. Brown of the Consultative Department of the Board of Trade told us that his calculation was based on the actual measurement of the vessel; and the Court is more disposed to trust to measurements thus made than to deductions drawn from full scale plans, which may after all not have been strictly adhered to. This objection therefore falls to the ground.

The next objection relates to the claim of 1 inch for an error in the marking of the deck line on the ship's side. According to the Board of Trade surveyors the deck line was not placed at the point where the deck if prolonged across the waterway would intersect the ship's side, but was on a level with the deck at its termination on the inner side of the waterway, and Mr. Brown told us that he had ascertained by actual measurement that it was 1 inch too high. And all that Mr. Williamson could say in answer was that he did not think that there could be that difference, seeing that the total round of beam on a half breadth of 21 1/4 feet was only 12 inches, and that the width of the waterway being only 18 inches the fall in that space could hardly be 1 inch. But Mr. Brown showed us by a drawing that the drop for an equal space would necessarily be greater at the sides than it would be towards the centre of the ship; so that this objection also falls to the ground.

Thirdly, there remains the question of the allowance proper to be made for the deck erections, and this is by far the most important question in the case. It seems that the vessel has a short poop measuring 8 feet 6 inches from the after part of the stern post to the fore part of the bulkhead, forward of which and separated from it by an alley way 4 feet wide is what has been called the after deck-house, which was 37 feet 6 inches long by 20 feet 6 inches broad, the entrance to it being by a door at the after end opening into the alley way between the poop and the deck-house. The ends of this alley way could, we were told, be closed in case of bad weather by boards or shutters slipped into grooves, and rising some 5 feet above the deck; and the distance of the sides of the deck-house from the ship's sides is 8 feet 6 inches at the fore end and 6 feet 6 inches at the after end. There is also a continuous deck covering the poop and the deck-house, and projecting 8 feet 9 inches over the alley ways at the sides. Forward of this is what may be called a middle deck-house, 14 feet 6 inches long by 12 feet wide, with a door at the after end of it, and with alley ways 14 feet wide on each side. There is also a forward deck-house just abaft the mainmast, 18 feet long by 10 feet 8 inches wide, with doors on each side, and with alley ways 14 feet 8 inches wide on each side. Lastly, there is a topgallant forecastle 36 feet long. The Board of Trade surveyors in estimating for the desk erections allowed for the poop and topgallant forecastle 4 3/4 inches, but made no allowance whatever for any of the other deck erections, on the ground that as none of them went out to the ship's side they could add nothing to the buoyancy of the ship, as she would be in a sinking state before they would begin to act. That was the view taken by the Board of Trade surveyors, and we were informed by Sir Digby Murray that the same view was taken by Lloyd's; in proof of which Mr. Champness, one of Lloyd's surveyors at Liverpool, was produced, who stated that, so far as he knew, no allowance was ever made by Lloyd's for erections which did not go out to the ship's sides; although he admitted that the determination of the freeboard did not rest with him, but with the central authorities in London, and that in sending up the dimensions for that purpose it would be his duty to annex a sketch of such an erection as the after deck-house to enable them to determined what was the proper amount of freeboard to be allowed. On the other hand the owners contended that allowance ought to be made for the deck-houses, and they claimed an additional 4 inches of freeboard for them, or a total for deck erections, including the poop and forecastle, of 8 3/4 inches. They stated that, although the deck-houses did not go out to the sides of the ship, they would be of use, inasmuch as they would displace so much water from the deck, as would be occupied by the houses themselves. To this it was answered that the only result would be to confine the water in the alley ways between the houses and the bulwarks, thus preventing it from escaping so easily as it would otherwise do through the freeing ports, and raising it to a great height in the alley ways. And Captain Wilson, one of the assessors, tells me that water thus confined in the alley ways, and washing from end to end of the vessel as she pitches, is a source of very great danger to those on board. It must at the same time be observed that the Rules nowhere say in express terms that allowance shall not be made for any deck erections other than those carried continuously from side to side of the vessel; and that there might be an erection coming to within a few inches of the side which in proportion to its dimensions would give almost the same amount of buoyancy as a poop or a forecastle, and it would be absurd in such a case not to allow anything for it. Indeed, the Rules themselves seem to contemplate an allowance for deck erections which are not continuous from side to side of the ship; for in the note on page 18 it is said, speaking of open bridge-houses, that where "the alley ways are open at both ends half the length " may be estimated as the value for deductions." As regards, however, the two forward deck-houses, with alley ways on each side of 14 feet and 14 feet 8 inches wide, and their unprotected doorways, I do not think that it can be seriously contended that any allowance should be made for them, for their buoyancy would not come into play until the vessel was almost bodily under water. The question, however, is not quite the same as regards the after deck-house, constructed as it was of thick iron plates, securely riveted to the deck, with a continuous deck above connecting it with the poop, and projecting some 8 feet 9 inches over the alley ways at the sides, and with wooden shutters to close up the ends of the after alley way, which could be shipped in bad weather and thus prevent any water getting to the doorway. Such an erection, it was contended by the owners, must be regarded as forming part of the poop, and as such would be entitled to count as value for deduction from the freeboard in the same way as the projecting portion of a poop or bridge-house is entitled to do when there is a convex bulkhead in front of it. It was, indeed, admitted by the Board of Trade surveyors, as well as by Lloyd's surveyor, that it was a construction of an exceptional character such as they had not seen before, and our attention was called by Mr. Kennedy to a paragraph on page 4 of the Load Line Committee's Rules, which is in these words, "To the responsible authorities a large " discretion must be allowed, viz., that of applying the tables themselves " with reasonable modifications to any very exceptional vessels which may " now exist or may hereafter be constructed." And the question, therefore, for our consideration is whether this construction is of so "very exceptional" a character that some, and if so what allowance ought to be made for it in estimating the proper freeboard for this vessel.

It seems that by the Rules the allowance for the poop and forecastle alone was 4 3/4 inches, of which 3 inches was for the forecastle and 1 3/4 inches for the poop. Now supposing that the poop had been carried forward as far as the fore end of the after deck-house, and had extended from side to side of the ship, the total allowance, we are told, for such a poop would have been 3 1/4 inches, and deducting the 1 3/4 inches allowed for the present poop there remains 1 1/2 inches for the additional space between the present poop and the fore end of the deck-house. It can, however, hardly be contended that the existing deck-house, with its alley ways on each side from 6 feet 6 inches to 8 feet 6 inches wide, and with its wooden shutters at the ends of the after alley way rising only 5 feet above the deck, is entitled to count for as much as a substantial poop, extending the whole length of the deck-house and carried from side to side of the ship. When, too, we consider that according to the note on page 18 of the Rules a substantial bridge-house, with open alley ways on each side, and carried out to the sides of the vessel, is only entitled to count for one half, it is obvious that such a construction as this would not count for anything like as much, and that 1/2 an inch would perhaps be the utmost allowance that could possibly be made for it. We are quite ready to admit that such a construction would tend to add to the safety of the ship, but it is not in our opinion of so "very exceptional" a character that it would justify us in making any deduction from the freeboard on this account, the more so as in almost every instance the Board of Trade surveyors have in making their calculations given the owners the benefit of the fractional differences. We do not say that there might not be cases, very exceptional cases, in which we should feel justified, on the authority of the paragraph on page 4 already quoted, in making some allowance in the freeboard beyond that deduced from the tables, but this is not such a case, and our decision is that the vessel should not be allowed to leave this port with a less freeboard than 5 feet 9 inches in salt water.

One word in conclusion as to the allowance for rise on getting into salt water. We were told that when the freeboard was measured a specimen of the water was taken from the Alfred Dock, which showed by the salinometer a weight per cubic foot of 1,024 ounces. And as salt water weighs 1,025, that would give a rise of only one fifth of an inch for this vessel when she got to sea. Our attention was, however, called to the tables at the end of the Load Line Committee's Rules, which state that the water in the Great Float Dock at Birkenhead weighs only 1,020 ounces, which would allow for a rise of 1 inch on getting into salt water; but it must be remembered that the weights given in the tables are the average weights, and that the weight of water would vary from time to time according to the amount of fresh water that might be coming down the river. When, too, we remember the extreme dryness of the past season, and the very small amount of rainfall, it is hardly to be wondered at that the water in the docks at Birkenhead should be more salt than usual. On the whole there is nothing in our opinion to show that the Board of Trade surveyors have made any error in their calculations in this respect, but this will be a matter to be settled when the detention is removed. What we decide now is that the vessel shall not be allowed to leave with a less freeboard than 5 feet 9 inches in salt water.

H. C. ROTHERY,

Wreck Commissioner.

We concur,

 

NATH. BARNABY,

Assessors.

 

R. WILSON,

 

o 52903. 50.—1/88. G. 317. Wt. 18400. E. & S. A