GRATITUDE.
“The bridegroom may forget the bride
Was made his wedded wife yestreen
The monarch may forget the crown
That on his head an hour has been;
The mother may forget her child
That smiles sae sweetly on her knee;
But I’ll remember thee, Glencairn,
And a’ that thou hast done for me.”
_Burns._
So far as ability and memory would permit I have given a plain
unvarnished account of the incidents connected with the most trying
time that I have ever experienced. Each day removes the date of
the _Alert_ disaster further off; still, in quiet moments, when I
look back on the 28th and 29th of last December, I cannot prevent a
saddening sensation from stealing over me.
Mingled with the feeling, however, comes the thought that I can never
be grateful enough, firstly to God, and secondly to the many kind
friends by whose assistance I was snatched from the grave! I will
be unworthy of the life they recalled if ever I forget those who
befriended me in my need, therefore, through the pages of this little
book I take the opportunity of publicly conveying some token of my
heartfelt gratitude to the Misses Armstrong, Davies, Duggin, Hill,
Moorman, and the nurses, Miss Skelton and Mrs. Keating, to Mrs.
J. D. Ramsay and Mrs. Whitelaw, to Drs. Browning, Cox, Hutchinson,
Hewlett, and Mullen, to the six gentlemen who carried me up the
cliffs, namely, Constables Conroy and Nolan, Messrs. Knowles, J. D.
Ramsay, J. F. Watts and W. D. Watts, also to Messrs. Clark, Cousins,
Maillard, McWalter, Stanton, and others whose names have not been
supplied to me. To each and all of the above ladies and gentlemen I
owe a debt which I never can repay. Further, these friends have not
only aided me as the “poor shipwrecked mariner,” but also, since the
wreck, they have in various ways laid me under a load of obligation
to them. There is still another friend whose kind services to me
must be acknowledged, although it is not an easy task for me to
convey my thanks to him. I allude to Mr. Austin Stanton’s St. Bernard
dog, “Victor Hugo.” He, by the instructions of his owner, took an
important part in the proceedings outside the cave on the Ocean
Beach, and the very least that can be said of him is that he is a
worthy descendant of the noble animal described in _Crabbe’s_ lines—
“With eye upraised, his master’s looks to scan,
The joy, the solace, and the aid of man,
The rich man’s guardian, and the poor man’s friend,
The only creature faithful to the end.”
CONCLUSION.
On the 2nd of February, 1894, the Melbourne Marine Court, consisting
of Mr. J. A. Panton, Police Magistrate, Captain A. J. Roberts,
and Mr. Douglas Elder, concluded their investigation into the
circumstances surrounding the foundering of the _Alert_. The decision
given was as follows:—
“We find that when the _Alert_ left Metung, she was properly
equipped in every respect, and apart from the manner in which
she was laden, was in a good and sea-worthy condition. She was
a suitable vessel, having regard to her build, for the trade in
which she was engaged, as it was shown in evidence that she was
classed for any trade. In view of the vessel’s construction and
the manner in which laden on her last voyage—having on board only
about forty four tons of cargo—the _Alert_ in the opinion of the
Court, had not sufficient stability, and in view of the weather
experienced, she had too much freeboard for the voyage she was on.
Considering the trim of the vessel and the state of the weather, it
would have been more prudent had the _Alert_ run into Western Port
for shelter. In the opinion of the Court, the Master should have
kept her head to sea when the vessel first commenced to take in
lee water. There was not any neglect on the part of the lighthouse
keeper at Cape Schanck, and existing regulations appear to have
been carefully observed. The crew of the life-boat at Queenscliff
appears to have been properly directed, and, in the opinion of the
court, they did all that could have been done, having in view all
the existing circumstances. A proper look-out was kept on board the
pilot schooner on the cruising station. The reason the boats on the
_Alert_ were not made use of would appear to be attributable to the
fact that when the vessel heeled over, the forward boat could not
be got at, and the after life-boat was washed away about the moment
when the vessel foundered, and there is no evidence to show what
became of it. There was a sufficient supply of proper life belts
on board, and they were easily available. There is no evidence
before the Court to show that the late Master, Alexander Mathieson,
did not use every precaution in handling the vessel. There is no
evidence to justify the Court in expressing an opinion as to the
immediate cause of the foundering of the steamship _Alert_.”
A perusal of the foregoing shows that, while almost everything else
has been commented on, no mention, whatever, is made of the fact that
the rig of the vessel did not permit of sail being set aft. In view
of the great length of the _Alert_—as compared with her depth—the
above fact constituted, in the opinion of the compiler of this book,
a very grave defect. Further, no vessel, whatever her length, or
whether steamer or sailing ship, should be classed by the Government
officials as fit to go outside Port Phillip Heads, unless she is
rigged in a suitable manner to enable her to carry sail aft, as well
as foreward. No doubt in these “hurry skurry” days the tendency of
the time is to make steam machinery take the place of sail, but until
man can control wind and waves, machinery can never wholly supersede
canvas. The latter is not only required to steady a steamship in a
seaway, but is indeed an actual necessity during emergencies brought
about by either a breakdown of machinery, or stress of weather.
It is not so very long since a large steamer, the _Age_, was tossing
about, for a week or so, in Bass’ Straits, as helpless as a log,
because her machinery had met with a mishap, and she was unable to
set canvas enough to keep her side down, let alone bring her into
port!
Moreover, it may be added that there is scarcely a single sea-going
steamer, which, at the present time, carries _half_ the canvas she
ought to. In the interests of life and property this is a matter that
should be carefully seen to in future, and, if need be, enforced by
legal enactment.
Steam power is very well in its place,
When water’s smooth and the ship’s in a race,
But when sea’s rough and wind blowing a gale,
There’s certainly greater safety in sail.
[Illustration: S.S. ALERT BEFORE ALTERATIONS.]
Battling with the Lawyers.
“Let us consider the reason of the case; for nothing
Is law that is not reason.”—_Sir John Powell._
KILPATRICK v. HUDDART, PARKER & CO., LTD.
On Monday, the 11th February, 1895, in the First Civil Court,
Melbourne, before his Honour, Sir Hartley Williams and a jury of six,
an action was commenced in which the plaintiff, Mrs. Lucy Kilpatrick,
widow of John Kennedy Kilpatrick, sued the defendants, Messrs.
Huddart, Parker and Co., to recover £3000 damages for the loss of her
husband.
Mr. C. A. SMYTH, Mr. Box, and Mr. W. H. Williams (instructed by
Messrs. Gaunson and Wallace) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Purves Q. C. and Mr. Mitchell (instructed by Messrs. Malleson,
England, and Stewart) for the defendants. Mr. Purves requested at the
outset that all witnesses be ordered out of court, and his Honour,
Mr. Justice Williams, made the necessary order, except in the case
of two experts whose evidences would not relate to the facts of the
trial.
THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE.
Mr. SMYTH, in opening the case, stated that the action was brought
by the widow Mrs. Kilpatrick on behalf of herself and her infant
daughter, born in September, 1892, to recover damages from the
defendants on account of the loss of her husband; and the ground
of the action was that he had lost his life through the conduct of
the defendants in sending to sea, and keeping at sea, the steamer
_Alert_ in an unsea-worthy condition. At the time of his death, the
deceased was engaged as second engineer on the ship. He was a young
man in the prime of life, being only twenty-nine years of age, and
held a certificate of a high class as first engineer, although he was
employed in a subordinate capacity on the fatal voyage. He was also a
man of strong and vigorous constitution. The action was based on the
103rd section of the Marine Act 1890, which was precisely the same as
the section of the Imperial Act, under which many decisions had been
given. These showed that the representatives of any person who had
lost his life in an accident arising from the unsea-worthiness of a
vessel, were entitled to recover damages. The jury would be told by a
number of witnesses that the steamer, from a variety of causes, was
utterly and entirely unfit for the sea-going trade at the time of the
disaster. The unsea-worthiness was a question of fact depending on
the circumstances of the case, and would be decided by the jury under
the direction of the judge.
MR. JUSTICE WILLIAMS: The cause of the action is that the defendants
did not take reasonable precaution to ensure the sea-worthiness of
the ship. You have not only to prove that she was unsea-worthy,
but that she was so by some act of negligence on the part of the
defendants.
MR. SMYTH in continuation said the _Alert_ was a small steamship of
243 tons gross measurement, built at Glasgow about seventeen years
ago. She was unduly long as compared with her beam, and particularly
so as compared with her depth. The engines and boilers were all
placed aft, and she was constructed as a river boat on very fine
lines. The weight of her machinery was about 150 tons, and in
consequence of having all this weight in the after part, she sat in
the water with her bow up and her stern low down. Her engines were
very powerful, and when she steamed fast the effect was to bring her
stern down still deeper, and of course raise her bow still higher out
of the water. Then at the aft part of the ship were the saloon and
engine rooms; but the entrance doors to these, instead of opening
outwards, opened inwards, so that in the event of pressure of water
they would open instead of closing. In addition to these, there
were doors, or lids, on each side of the vessel’s deck leading into
the stoke-hole and coal bunkers. Further, there were gratings, or
“fiddleys,” as they are often called, on each side for admitting
light and ventilation to the engineers and firemen below. In the
opinion of experts, provision should have been made for covering
these openings with tarpaulins, so as to prevent water from going
below in heavy weather. There was also in the front of the poop a
hole cut through the iron bulk-head, which was fitted with a square
glass window in a wooden frame. This also opened inwards, and was
used for the purpose of passing dishes of food into the pantry and
saloon, when required, from the cook’s galley. Such an opening might
be very well for river trade, but was a most improper thing in a
small vessel sent out on the high seas. It was no wonder that the
pressure of water burst this window in and caused the saloon to
fill. Notwithstanding all these defects, more had to be mentioned.
There was a large wooden awning which extended all over the poop,
and constituted a highly dangerous article on board a vessel of the
_Alert’s_ dimensions. She had besides only about forty-four tons of
cargo on board, and it was stowed away in the main hold, and none
in the foreward part of the ship. Consequently, the vessel was out
of all trim, and not in a fit state to go to sea. The state of the
weather and the manner of her loading caused the ship to list to
starboard, or leeward, and all the efforts of Captain Mathieson to
get her head to windward failed entirely. This was principally due
to the fact that the _Alert_ had only one mast, and hence no sail
could be set aft to help the ship’s head up. As a result of the way
in which the vessel was loaded, she had little or no “freeboard” aft,
while foreward she had a very large amount, hence the wind and waves
had tremendous power on the bow as compared with the after part.
Experts would be called on behalf of the plaintiff, shipwrights,
pilots, master-mariners, and others acquainted with navigation, who
would testify to the jury that any of the matters which he (Mr.
Smyth) had drawn attention to would be sufficient to make the vessel
unsea-worthy. For these reasons he would ask the jury to award the
plaintiff damages for the lamented death of Mr. Kilpatrick.
EVIDENCE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.
The first witness called was Robert Ponting, the sole survivor of the
wreck. Under examination by Mr. Box, the witness stated: I know the
_Alert_ pretty well. I was on board of her in the capacity of cook. I
was in Messrs. Huddart, Parker, and Co.’s employment. I was on the S.
S. _Despatch_ before I went to the _Alert_. The _Alert_ temporarily
took the place of the _Despatch_ in order to get the latter repaired,
and at the time of the wreck we were on the eighth trip, I believe,
after taking the place of the _Despatch_. These trips were from
Melbourne to Port Albert, and Bairnsdale, and the lakes, and back,
not always calling at Port Albert on the way back. I have been at sea
twelve years altogether.
I recollect going to Bairnsdale on this last trip of the _Alert_. We
got to Bairnsdale on that trip on Christmas night, 1893. We did not
discharge cargo next day, as it was a holiday—Boxing day. The vessel
discharged on Wednesday, 27th December. I saw some cargo taken in
on that day. It was put in the main hold. The main hold was abaft
the mast and immediately in advance of the bridge. The _Alert_
had another hold forward of the mast, and also another one, but no
cargo was placed in any hold except the main. The cargo consisted
principally of wattle bark, sheepskins, and some furniture. We left
Bairnsdale on Wednesday afternoon about two o’clock, and called at
Metung, where we took in some more bark in bundles. This was also
put in the main hold. So far as I know, we had no heavy cargo on
board. During the previous seven trips we never brought so light a
cargo. We passed through the Lake’s Entrance that night. Outside
there was a calm sea, and not much wind. Sometime after getting out
to sea, the weather became thick and foggy, and during the night the
ship was hove to for about four hours until the fog lifted. A breeze
sprang up from the S. E., and we steered for Wilson’s Promontory, and
succeeded in passing it at about seven o’clock on Thursday morning.
There was not much swell on until we got through the Straits. While
the wind was S. E., the trysail and staysail were set. After passing
the Promontory, the wind began to vary, but it was not blowing hard,
although there was a rising swell from the S. W. When passing Cape
Liptrap, the ship was very lively and knocking about a good deal. She
shipped no water, only spray now and then. I was not always in the
cook’s galley. I kept moving about, and could see how the vessel was
sitting in the water. I could not say how much freeboard she had, but
she was high out of the water foreward, and down aft. The ship had
an awning aft. It was made of weather-board, and was a fixture. The
grating on the top of the deck was to let air into the stoke-hole. I
never saw it covered over, and did not see any covering for it. The
bunker holes were on deck. They were covered with iron tops, or lids.
The entrances to the stoke-hole and engine room were on the port
and starboard sides. There was a window in front of the poop on the
starboard side. It was about sixteen inches square, a wooden frame
with glass fitted in. It was large enough for an ordinary man to get
through, and was used for passing food into the saloon. It opened
into the pantry, and the pantry led to the saloon. When unfastened,
it was made to fall down on its hinges horizontal inside the pantry,
thus forming a sort of shelf on which dishes were placed. A small
bracket underneath kept it in position as a shelf. When shut, the
fastenings were two small brass bolts, one each side. These bolts
were not so thick as my little finger, and when the window was closed
they shot into catch holes at the sides of the wooden frame work.
They fitted loosely, and when shutting the window we used to turn the
bolts round to prevent them slipping out of their sockets. The window
was constantly being used, and sometimes was left open on a fine day.
I remember the ship getting to about two miles east of Cape Schanck,
at three o’clock on Thursday afternoon (28th December). There was a
heavy sea running off the Cape, but not so heavy as I have seen by a
long way. The wind veered round to S. W., and the captain altered the
ship’s course. By altering the course, the ship was kept close enough
up to the wind to allow of the sail drawing to keep her steady. The
crew came aft at eight bells (4. P. M.), while the ship was still
heading off the land. Shortly afterwards Captain Mathieson kept the
ship away on her course for Port Phillip Heads. I suppose it would
be about ten minutes after the ship was kept away that she shipped
the first heavy sea on the lee side. All the doors leading into the
galley and stoke-hole were closed on the port (the weather) side. I
could not say whether at that time they were open on the starboard
(the lee) side, but they were open all the time previously. She took
the sea I have spoken of on board close by the engine room. It canted
her over to starboard. The deck was right full up with the water,
which ran all the way aft. The after part of the alleyway was under
water up to the break of the poop. The pantry window would be about
two feet above the level of the main deck. I could not say whether
the water covered the window altogether, but it was sufficiently up
against it to get in if it were open. This was the sea that swung the
saloon lamps up against the ceiling and broke them. Sail was then
taken off the ship, and her head brought up to windward, but she
would be no sooner close up than the seas would knock her off into
the trough again. The captain was at the wheel on the bridge at this
time. Another sea came over the lee side and washed me overboard feet
first. This sea sent a lot of water into the saloon, the sliding door
of which was wide open. After I got washed on board again, I went
below into the saloon and found the water rushing about there. The
pantry window was then open, and the sea coming in. The steward and
I succeeded in closing the window and refastening the bolts before
we went on deck again. I did not afterwards go below, but the chief
mate, steward, and myself on looking down the companion saw that the
water was still rising in the saloon. At this time the water on the
main deck was up right over the pantry window, so that we could not
see it at all. The steward said the window must have been carried
away. I do not know what state the engine room and stoke-hole were in
then; but shortly afterwards all the people connected with the motive
power came on deck, saying they could not remain below on account of
the water. I had a conversation with the chief officer concerning the
condition of the ship and the weather. I got washed away some little
time before the vessel foundered. She went down about half past four
with her nose sticking up in the air. I am the only man that was
saved out of her. After being nearly sixteen hours in the water, I
was ultimately thrown ashore about ten miles from where the ship went
down.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purves: Before I was wrecked, I did not know
exactly what the dimensions of the _Alert_ were. I saw the figures in
the papers after the Marine Board enquiry. It is correct when I say
this was the lightest cargo I had ever known on board the vessel. It
was the general talk of everybody on board about the cargo being the
smallest we ever had. I could not swear that the captain said so. The
crew said it before we left the wharf at Bairnsdale, and they said it
when they were putting their life-belts on before the ship went down.
_Question._—You received certain moneys from a fund subscribed by the
public? _Answer._—Yes.
_Q._—Do you know whether Messrs. Huddart, Parker and Co. contributed
to that fund? _A._—It was advertised in the newspapers that they
contributed £100 to the fund, and from the £1200 subscribed by the
public I received £25.
_Q._—Did you have any bad weather on this particular voyage? _A._—Not
exceptionally bad.
_Q._—Did you have a choppy sea,—mind I don’t mean a sea cook’s chops?
(Laughter.) _A._—Yes, we had some choppy seas.
_Q._—Was it blowing a gale? _A._—Not before we reached the Schanck.
_Q._—Do you know how many miles you went from seven o’clock till
four? _A._—About nine or ten knots an hour.
_Q._—At three o’clock you were two miles east of the Schanck?
_A._—Yes; and at four o’clock we were six or seven miles to windward
of the Schanck.
_Q._—You were going out to sea from two miles until the time you
foundered? _A._—No; we were making for the Heads when she went down.
_Q._—How do you know when the vessel foundered? _A._—When I got
back to the ship, after being washed overboard the first time, I
found on examining my pockets that the water had stopped my watch at
five minutes past four, and I estimate that she sank about twenty
minutes after that. (At counsel’s request the witness here handed
the watch over, and its rusty works—together with the time its dial
indicated—were evidently examined with much interest.)
_Q._—Up to the time you were two miles east of the Schanck, did the
vessel ship any water. _A._—Only spray. There was no heavy sea. The
wind kept increasing as we went along. It was a fresh, but not a
heavy gale.
_Q._—If I call a witness who said it was a heavy gale, and that
it was blowing a gale before you got to Cape Schanck, you will
contradict him? _A._—Yes.
_Q._—The ship never was in any danger until her course was changed to
the Heads? _A._—None whatever.
_Q._—Did the danger not commence when within two miles of the Schanck
at the time the course was altered so as to head out seaward?
_A._—No; it was no danger that we would be frightened of.
_Q._—Did the ship have the trysail on her when shaping for the Heads?
_A._—Yes.
_Q._—Did she have it on her when the captain tried to bring her head
to the wind? _A._—No, they took it in.
_Q._—Up to about a quarter of an hour after her course was shaped to
the Heads, you never apprehended any danger? _A._—I can’t swear to a
few minutes.
_Q._—Had you ever faced such weather as this before? _A._—Not in the
_Alert_.
_Q._—Had you in any ship? _A._—Yes, in the _Despatch_ on the coast.
_Q._—That is the only ship you saw such heavy weather in? _A._—I have
been in dozens. I have been in the _Despatch_ in far heavier weather.
_Q._—Up to the time the ship was headed out to sea, was there any
water in the saloon at all? _A._—No, not a drop.
_Q._—Do you say that the water that went in at the pantry window
caused the ship to founder? _A._—I say it helped to founder her.
_Q._—Directly she was put on her course, she came on her beam ends
and never righted herself. Was it not the shifting of her course that
caused her to founder? _A._—Not that I am aware of.
_Q._—When she foundered, you were in the sea looking on? _A._—Yes.
_Q._—Does that picture correctly represent the sinking of the
_Alert_? (Picture showing the vessel in the act of going down handed
to witness.) _A._—I don’t say correctly. It is something fair.
_Q._—Do you call that a moderate gale which is depicted there? _A._—I
did not make that picture. I told them the ship went down stern
first, and they drew it themselves.
_Q._—In your previous evidence before the Marine Board you said, “The
second sea that came washed me overboard and I clung to the rail, and
the next sea took me on board again. The second sea washed me into
the saloon, and the water dashed in the cabin door. The steward drew
my attention to the water in the saloon.” What did you mean by that?
_A._—I never used those expressions. They are put down wrongly.
_Q._—The statement was read over to you, and you signed it. Why did
you not correct it? _A._—I certainly would have done so if I had
understood it when it was read over. I do not remember hearing it
read. It may have been read, but I could not follow it.
_Q._—Was the ship going ahead at the time she disappeared? _A._—No,
she was drifting in.
_Q._—Did not the smoke and flame rush out of the funnel before she
foundered? _A._—It rushed out when she was foundering.
Re-examined by Mr. C. A. Smyth: I have been suffering ever since the
wreck, and was confined to bed in the first instance for about three
months. When I was examined before the Marine Board was four or five
weeks after the wreck. I was not recovered at that time, and had to
take to my bed after that. I cannot say whether the statement I then
made was read to me before I signed it. Some of the passages are not
correct. My memory varies sometimes, but it is fairly good on the
whole subject. I was in the saloon when the lamps were smashed, and
there was no water in the place at that time. The lightness of the
ship and the show of getting her round were matters of conversation
amongst all of us.
HIS HONOUR MR. JUSTICE WILLIAMS: _Q._—Supposing all the doors of the
companion were shut, could the water get into the saloon in any way
except through the pantry window? _A._—That was the only way.
Re-cross-examined by Mr. Mitchell: _Q._—Are you able to say whether
water could get from the saloon to the engine room and back again?
_A._—There was a little round door over the shaft big enough for one
man to get through. It would lead to the stern of the ship. I could
not say whether it was open or shut.
_Q._—When you saw the water rising in the saloon, could you see the
condition of the lee companion doors? _A._—All three of us—chief
mate, steward, and myself—were standing in the port door at the time
we saw the water rising. It was not safe then to go into the saloon.
[Illustration: Steamship]
KILPATRICK v. HUDDART, PARKER & CO., LTD.
SECOND DAY, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1895.
_Evidence for the Plaintiff._—(_Continued._)
JAMES GRANT, examined by Mr. C. A. Smyth, stated: I am a shipwright,
with about forty years’ experience in the business, and amongst
shipping. I have a certificate for navigation as chief officer. I got
it in 1875. I also passed my examination before the Steam Navigation
Board as marine engineer. I have seen the S. S. _Alert_ running up
and down the Bay several times as a Bay trader. Some repairs were
effected to her machinery in the year 1893, some months before she
was lost. Messrs. Robinson Bros. had the contract for the job, and I
was engaged as their ship carpenter to carry out the shipwrighting
work. I was working on her two months altogether. Speaking of her
generally, she had very fine lines. The model now shown me appears
to be like her. There is no bearing here (pointing to bottom of
model). To give her stability, the flat part should be carried
further along. There is no bearing until the bulging part touches
the water, and it would have the effect of throwing her deep in the
water aft. She was about 170 feet long, her breadth eighteen or
nineteen feet, and her depth between nine and ten feet. In my opinion
the _Alert_ was very long for her beam and for her depth. According
to the _Alert’s_ certificate of register, she came out from England
as a three masted schooner, or barque, under sail only. When I was
making the alterations she had only one mast, a foremast, as shown
in that model. The captain’s bridge went right across the ship, and
there was a gangway going fore and aft on the starboard side, from
the bridge to the poop. There was nothing on the port side at all.
The stoke-hole would be about twelve feet in width athwart ships,
and about five feet fore and aft. It was covered over with a grating
composed of ¾-inch iron running fore and aft, and these bars were
about two inches apart. There was no provision made for covering
this grating with a tarpaulin by means of cleats. Nor was there any
provision made for covering any of the skylights. There was nothing
to prevent the water getting through either grating or skylights.
If water went through either of these places, it would go into the
engine room and stoke-hole. The height of the ship’s bulwarks above
the main deck was four feet six inches. The breadth of the alleyways
between the bulwarks and the side of the machinery casing would be
about three feet at the narrowest part, and five feet further on.
There was a port hole in the bulwarks opposite; but if the vessel
shipped water while lying on her side, that port could not discharge
inside water, and there was no provision for discharging water in
the alleyways except that port hole. I remember the window made for
passing food to the saloon. I did not make it. Originally it must
have been cut out of the iron. It was a glass window about 16 x 14
inches, with a wooden frame. I did not notice how it opened; but
if it opened inwards it would be a source of danger if the vessel
shipped much water aft. I remember the bunker holes for shipping
the coal. I fixed them in. Each had a cast-iron frame sunk in the
deck. The covers were about sixteen inches in diameter. They were
flush with the deck, and were only held in their places by their
own weight. In the case of a vessel dashing about heavily with
water rolling inside, those covers might get knocked off, and the
stoke-hole would be filled direct from the sea. If a lug were placed
on the lower part of the cover, and a half-turn given, then it would
stay on and prevent water going down. The _Alert’s_ covers had
no lugs. The weight of her boiler and engines would be about one
hundred and fifty tons. The weight of the water in the boiler would
be twenty-three to twenty-five tons. Taking into consideration the
ship’s cargo, build and trim, I do not think she was fit for a sea
voyage. If she had had an after mast with a sail on, it might have
helped a bit when efforts were made to bring her to the wind; but as
long as she was so light foreward she would be hard to bring up, if
not impossible. The light cargo would affect her stability. She was
not fit to stand a gale of wind. She was right enough for the Bay
trade; but with my experience at sea, I say she was not safe, and I
would not have gone to sea in her. She had very little freeboard aft
and too much foreward. I know the awning that was over her. It was
wooden and permanently fixed. When the vessel was lying over, the
wind would get under it and prevent her from righting herself. The
proper awning at sea is canvas. In bad weather a vessel is better
without any awning.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purves: _Q._—You have described yourself as a
chief officer? _A._—Yes; I will show you my discharges if you like.
Mr. Purves: Oh, I don’t want to see them. What vessels were you chief
officer of? _A._—The S. S. _Omeo_, and also two sailing ships.
_Q._—Did you examine the lines of the _Alert_? _A._—Yes; I saw her
out of the water in the dry dock in the River Yarra. In most good
trust worthy ships’ bottoms there is a floor running a long way
foreward and aft; but when working in the after hold of the _Alert_,
the floor was so fine that one could not stand on it.
_Q._—What height was the casing around the engine room and
stoke-hole? _A._—It was about seven feet above the deck of the
vessel, and when the doors on each side are closed the only way water
can get in is through the top.
_Q._—Did you ever see a sea go as high as that? _A._—I have seen a
sea go over a ship’s foretopsail yard.
_Q._—What ship was that? _A._—The _Royal Bride_.
Mr. Purves: The _Royal Bride_, I presume, stood on her head to
accomplish that remarkable feat. (Laughter.)
_Q._—Seas that would go over the topsail yard would also go down the
funnel? _A._—I should say so. I have seen steamers at Greymouth with
bags tied over the funnel.
_Q._—Then the water would be just as likely to go down the _Alert’s_
funnel as her grating? _A._—No; it would not be just as likely that
the sea would go down the funnel as the grating; but seas might come
over the weather side, and a good deal go down the grating. I do not
say sufficient would go down that way to sink the ship.
_Q._—How many tons of water do you calculate the _Alert_ would ship
through the pantry window in the course of a minute? _A._—Nearly
twenty tons. It would depend a good deal on the height of the water
outside. If the vessel were on her beam ends, and the window covered
with water, enough would rush in to knock everything down.
_Q._—Would the wooden awning help to bring the _Alert’s_ head round
in a gale? _A._—By putting up a sail aft to the wind, you can always
bring a vessel up. The wooden awning might have that effect, but in
my opinion it would do more harm than good.
_Q._—Suppose during a six hours’ gale, keeping a certain course,
the _Alert_ never shipped a sea, would you consider that a proof of
her sea-worthiness? _A._—Not altogether. The moment she altered her
course she might ship a sea and go down. If I were on board, and
found in a violent gale that by pursuing a certain course I was safe,
I would not alter that course.
_Q._—Supposing your alleyways were full of water, and the bunkers had
the covers on, how could the water get the covers off? _A._—It is
very different with a vessel turning over and jumping. The sea would
make you jump off your feet sometimes.
_Q._—Have you seen the _Excelsior_ steamer? _A._—I have, but I have
not travelled in her. She is fine in her lines, but she is only a
river boat. No man with any experience would build a vessel like the
_Alert_ to go to sea.
_Q._—How much cargo would it take to make the _Alert_ sea-worthy?
_A._—It could not have been done anyhow. No amount of cargo would
make her sea-worthy. She might be better in a gale if she were
heavily laden. She should have had about 100 tons of cargo; it would
put her more on an even keel. If the forty-four tons of cargo had
been put in the forehold, a difference would have been made.
_Q._—Which would make the more stable cargo, 100 tons of feather
beds, or 100 tons of pig-iron? _A._—They would both be the same
weight, but the feather beds would be more lively than the pig-iron.
(Loud laughter.) They would, however, be the very worst cargo a
vessel could possibly take, for the one would be all too high, and
the other all too low. There is a medium in everything.
Re-examined by Mr. Smyth: A vessel coming out here as a barque, or
schooner, would have square, as well as fore and aft canvas, and
would be in proper trim. She would not require water in her boiler,
and when sailing the funnel would be unshipped and put down below.
The _Alert_ had two boilers, but when the alterations were made,
one boiler as large as the previous two was put in. This boiler was
in her when she was lost. It stood about four feet above the level
of the main deck. The old boilers did not come above the deck. A
light cargo would make the ship more lively, and would affect her
stability. She did not have enough. If the vessel were on her course
standing out to seaward, and there was no apprehension of danger,
there would be nothing to prevent me, as a seaman, from altering her
course. It was good seamanship to make for the Heads. I knew the
late Captain Mathieson. He was a first-rate seaman, understood his
business, was sober and attentive, and quite fit for the position.
The greater the head of water outside the pantry window, the greater
the pressure, and the more quickly the water would be forced through.
_Q._—We are told by Mr. Ponting that the vessel was lying over, and
that the water was over the whole of that aperture, coming up to the
break of the poop; and there is that body of water constantly coming
in from the sea. That is as far as we can give you the pressure of
the water outside. Can you make a calculation of the quantity of
water that would go through that aperture per minute, and the weight
of it? _A._—Assuming the water is two feet higher than the aperture,
I make it 2,820 gallons, and 28,200 lbs. in a minute. There are 2,240
lbs. to the ton, that would give between twelve and thirteen tons.
_Q._—Supposing the water is only one foot above the aperture, what
difference would it make? _A._—It would be a third less, and that
would be eight or ten tons. If the water were flush with the top
of the aperture, the discharge through would be a little less than
I have stated, and if fifty or sixty tons of water were down that
aperture, a small sea would smother the vessel, and she would go
right down stern first.
To His Honour.—If the forty-four tons of cargo had been placed
further foreward, it certainly would have helped the ship a bit by
giving her a more even trim.
JAMES SCOTT SUTHERLAND, examined by Mr. Williams, deposed: I am a
shipwright, and have had experience of about fifty years. I knew the
S. S. _Alert_ for about seventeen years. I never worked on board of
her until on the last occasion, when she got new engines, about two
years ago. I was employed by Mr. Grant. My work was principally in
the stoke-hole and engine room putting beams and flooring down there,
and also in the cargo hold. I had an opportunity of judging her. In
my opinion she was never intended for an ocean going vessel. I think
she was altogether out of proportion by being too long for her depth
and width, and too fine in her after section. She could scarcely have
any freeboard according to her depth. If she were drawing nine feet
six inches aft, and only had nine feet depth of hold, she could not
have any freeboard. On the top of the boiler there was a skylight,
and just at its after part were some gratings. These gratings led
down to the stoke-hole. There was no protection for them that I saw.
I lined the bunker holes on her deck. The rims where the lid fits in
were let down flush with the deck; a grating went into the flange on
the inside, and the lid went down on that again. From having passed
over it, I say the whole was level with the deck. The vessel sat in
the water with her bows up. If she shipped any water she could not
help taking it into the alleyways. There were two little ports, one
on each side of the bulwarks, to take the water away. There were none
foreward in front of the engine room. I did not notice the window in
the poop. I do not consider the wooden awning much of a disadvantage,
except that it would give her extra top weight when she was off an
even keel. It would do for the Bay trade, but for encountering a
heavy gale there should have been a canvas awning. I do not consider
forty-four tons of wattle bark and furniture a sufficient cargo to
put her on an even keel. She would not be in proper trim to go to sea.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mitchell: The awning would be about equal to
the weight of a mast, and would make the vessel top heavy, otherwise
it would make no appreciable difference. I was working inside, and
anything I saw of the outside of the ship was from casually looking
at her.
ANDREW MICHAEL MCCANN, examined by Mr. Smyth, stated: I am a
shipwright, shipbuilder, and general contractor, and have had over
thirty years’ experience as such. I have had about thirteen years’
experience at sea in sailing vessels and steamers. I have been
ship’s carpenter, second mate, and chief mate. I was partner in the
firm of Campbell, Sloss & McCann, and shareholder in Robison Bros.
& Co. I knew the _Alert_ since she arrived in the colony. She was
engaged in the trade between Melbourne and Geelong, inside the Heads.
During that time my firm did several jobs on various occasions to
the vessel. I have made trips to Geelong in her as a passenger. She
was a fast boat in the Bay. She was very low down aft, and carried
her cargo foreward. I put that wooden awning on myself about ten
years ago. It was intended as an awning. In a small boat it would
not be beneficial outside the Bay. I don’t think the tendency would
be good in a boat of this kind. It would take the wind pressure and
incline the vessel over and keep her there. Canvas is admitted to be
the proper awning, so that it can be furled, and it should be furled
when the wind increases. There is a difference in the dimensions
of vessels. I know the length and depth and beam of the _Alert_
approximately. From the model I know where the engines were placed.
They were abaft the midship section, and would have a tendency to
bring her down aft. I can only give an estimate that the engines,
boiler, water, and coal would weigh about one hundred and forty
tons. In ordinary fine weather, the _Alert_ would be sea-worthy with
forty-four tons of cargo. There is a likelihood of heavy weather at
any time outside Port Phillip Heads. In consequence of the general
construction, the small freeboard, and the want of aft canvas to
assist in fetching her up in the wind, if necessary, I do not think
the _Alert_ was suitable for heavy weather at any time, and in my
opinion she was never constructed or intended for sea voyages. The
great number of times her length exceeds her beam and her depth
makes her unsuitable for sea going purposes. She would make bad
weather even in the ordinary weather got in the Straits outside.
That means she would be a very wet ship in bad weather. She was very
finely built, and was fine all round. A second mast would enable the
helmsman, or master, to have more command over the ship. For the
safety of the vessel more canvas would have been of great assistance,
and the helm would have had more effective power. If she had after
sail, and they had taken the head sail off her, it would have had a
tendency to fetch her up to the wind.
_Q._—Assuming there was a grating over the stoke-hole unprotected,
would that be a cause of danger? _A._—Unless properly protected,
it would be a serious cause of injury. It is the ordinary custom
for all hatches to be protected by tarpaulins, cleated and battened
down. It would be a reasonable and proper thing to make a provision
for tarpaulins over that grating, and it should be compulsory to
have such fastenings. I have not seen the window in the fore part of
the poop, but if there was, it should have had a shutter outside on
hinges capable of being fastened inside and out. It is customary on
all new ships to have the bunker hole covers secured, and so they
ought to be.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mitchell: I have been on the _Alert_ I daresay
one hundred times doing repairs to the ship. It was an improper thing
not to be able to attach a cover to the grating. It would be a very
heavy sea that would go over it from the weather side, but if the
vessel were thrown on her beam ends, there is nothing to prevent it
going in on the lee side. An angle of 45 degrees would be sufficient
to throw her over enough to take in a lee sea that would cover it.
It is not the throw over of the vessel alone, it is simultaneously
the rise of the sea to leeward. I have no knowledge how far the ship
did go over on this occasion, but I think there would not be much of
a sea from the weather side. If she did take water in on the weather
side, it would be principally forward of the bridge, and it would get
to the lee side before getting to the grating. By 45 degrees I mean
the vessel has to go 45 degrees from the perpendicular. This is not
an unusual angle for a ship to heel over; in my experience I have
known them to heel over almost to a right angle.
His Honour,—I have known large steamers to roll over to a greater
degree than an angle of 45.
_Q._—By Mr. Mitchell: What is your idea as to how the _Alert_ was
lost? _A._—The opinion I have formed is that they had a change of
wind and a mixed sea; that the vessel began to labor and take in much
water, which eventually took her down. On measuring the model of
the _Alert_ now shown in court, I find that the vessel’s length was
eighteen times her depth and nine times her beam, approximately.
JOHN MCKENZIE, examined by Mr. Smyth, said: I am a Marine Surveyor,
and I have been a Master Mariner. I have had twenty-one years’
experience at sea, and have been thirteen years as captain to almost
every part of the globe. Since the year 1870, I have been a Marine
Surveyor. I have also had a good deal of experience in shipbuilding,
and was for two years Shipwright Surveyor for the Underwriters’
Association. I knew the _Alert_, and first became acquainted with
her thirteen years ago. I officially surveyed the vessel in one
of the dry docks in Melbourne. I was then Surveyor to the Lloyd’s
Associated. Captain Webb, now the managing Director of Huddart,
Parker & Co., was in command of the ship at that time. I was seeing
if she was in good condition and fit for risk for insurance. I
did not see Captain Webb on that occasion. I found some rivets
defective in the after keel of the vessel. They were not done on
that occasion. Captain Webb called at our office the day after, and
wished to know if I would allow the vessel to run another six mouths
before completing the repairs I had asked for. He told me she was
only intended for the Geelong trade. I have been on board the _Alert_
a good many times since. I remember when the last repairs to the
engines were made. On several occasions I was there while they were
going on. I saw the work being done. The alterations that were made
would, in my opinion, not alter the trim of the ship. They were very
powerful engines for such a small vessel. I have been on her several
trips to Geelong. In those days she sat very much by the stern, and
did not show much freeboard.
The effect of the engines going full speed had a tendency to pull her
down aft fully a foot. The model on the table there was made from my
instructions. It has the dimensions of the _Alert_, and it is only
made from recollections of the vessel. I had no plans to guide me.
It is, I believe, a very fair representation of the _Alert_. She
had very fine lines both fore and aft, and thus her stability was
reduced very considerably. I have calculated the weight of machinery,
including shaft and propeller, as about 150 tons. That also includes
the coal bunkers. With that weight in such a small vessel, it had the
effect of putting her so far down in the water that she showed very
little freeboard. It was too heavy for the vessel. She was not able
to carry such a weight in that particular part of the ship, and it
brought her down too much aft. Putting whatever cargo you like in her
foreward, in my opinion she would not be fit for ocean going under
any circumstances. By the time you got the vessel sufficiently loaded
foreward, she would be so deeply immersed that she would show very
little freeboard from the midship section aft. Assuming she had nine
feet six inches of water-line aft, and four feet six inches foreward,
then she had about one foot nine inches freeboard aft, and eight
feet of freeboard foreward. I heard it stated in evidence that there
were forty-four tons of cargo on board on her last trip. With that
amount of cargo, and placed in the position it was, from the nature
of the cargo—it being of so light a description—it would take so much
space in the hold that it would add to her instability. It would be
stowed up to the deck, and would not lie far enough foreward in the
vessel. In my opinion with all that weight aft, she was not fit for
sea going at that time of the year. Southerly gales are more frequent
and more heavy about Bass Straits in summer than in winter. From the
extraordinary dimensions of the ship in the first place, and from her
being so deeply immersed in the water aft, she was not sea-worthy.
For the length to be eighteen times that of her depth is, I think,
out of all proportion. There is not any hard and fast rule as to what
a vessel’s dimensions should be, but in my opinion, according to
Lloyd’s rule, the length should never exceed sixteen times the depth.
I remember the grating. It was not safe to go to sea without some
protection for it. It would have been only a necessary precaution to
have had cleats and tarpaulins ready. I think that the whole of the
casing round the engine room was unsafe. It left only the alleyways
on each side to hold water. The two sides would hold somewhere about
fifty tons, and that quantity would be sufficient to put the ship
out of sight. The sides of the vessel ought to have been carried
up as high as the top of the casing, and the whole thing covered
over with a deck. The entrances to the engine room and stoke-hole
were dangerous. When the alleyways are full of water, it is bound
to get through the doors of those places. I remember the window in
front of the poop. It was a most improper thing to have, and was
simply dangerous. In smooth water it was not so important, but it is
necessary to secure every aperture to any vessel when she has to go
outside the Heads. With such a window as it was, the _Alert_ was not
a sea going vessel, even if her bunker lids had been fastened, which
they were not.
I heard the evidence of Mr. Ponting yesterday that the vessel
encountered certain weather after passing Cape Schanck, and that she
stood out to sea three or four miles. It was a right thing to do to
give the land a good berth, and after getting a good offing there was
nothing improper in Captain Mathieson making for the Heads. I knew
Captain Mathieson by reputation. He was always considered to be a
careful seaman. I heard of the efforts made to get the vessel’s head
up to the wind, and that every time she was brought up she paid off.
I should think that was on account of her being so light foreward. If
she had had an after mast it would have had some effect, but under
the circumstances I question if it would have had the desired effect.
When the vessel was struck by the seas, she must have been struck
on the port side and hurled over to such an extent that the whole
of the lee deck became flooded. The vessel was simply waterlogged,
and could not steer. In all probability there was water in the
engine room and stoke-hole which interfered with the fireman keeping
up sufficient steam in order to get the proper amount of power.
These things, combined with her light bow and the wind striking on
it, would make the ship lie like a helpless log impossible to be
steered. I saw the wooden awning on the _Alert_. It was very useful
for passengers down the Bay, but for a small vessel like her going
outside, it should not have been a fixture. The effect would be that
when she came over on her beam ends, the wind would get underneath
the awning and hold the ship down. If an awning were wanted, it ought
to be of canvas, and not spread at all even in half a gale.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purves: I was not discharged from the
Underwriters’ Association, but left their employment because I had
finished my agreement with them. I am now in business for myself. I
am a surveyor of shipping, and also teach navigation. I have the same
authority to survey ships as any other surveyor. I have not got up
this case. I made the model exhibited, and McKenzie the shipwright
finished it. I have spoken to Captain Mathieson on several occasions.
He did not carry a pilot on board. He was an exempt master and a
skilful sailor. From Melbourne to Bairnsdale and back, would be about
530 miles, and the _Alert_ would need about fifty tons of coal to
do the round. She would burn twenty tons in twenty-four hours, and
at the time she foundered, she would have burnt a good deal of her
supply of coal. A ton of water is about three feet by two feet in
size. There would be a ton and three quarters in a 400 gallon tank.
If both the alleyways were filled, they would hold about fifty tons
of water, and the ship would go under. At the time the _Alert_ was
built, the bunker tops on a good many vessels were fitted in the same
way as hers; but they are not allowed to be fitted in such a way
now. I surveyed the _Alert_. I did not pass her for insurance. She
was refused by the Underwriters. I will swear the Secretary informed
me that she was not to be insured until she was passed. She was not
passed by me. Glass ports are just as efficient to keep out the sea
as an iron casing, because they are properly secured inside. A window
like the _Alert’s_ could be made perfectly secure, but in her case it
was not. When I surveyed the ship I did not complain of the window. I
would not object to it because the ship was only trading to Geelong.
I know the S. S. _Excelsior_. She is not fit to go to sea. I would
not pass her.
HENRY WILLIAM BYRANT, examined by Mr. Smyth: I am a duly qualified
medical practitioner residing at Williamstown. I knew John Kennedy
Kilpatrick for four years. He never ailed in any way. I examined him
once or twice, and found him perfectly sound and a very strong man.
I would not make any statement as to how long he might have lived,
but he would live as long as any healthy man might live. His age was
twenty-eight to thirty.
[Illustration: Decoration]
KILPATRICK v. HUDDART, PARKER & CO., LTD
THIRD DAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1895.
_Evidence for the Plaintiff._—(_Continued._)
WILLIAM MATTHEWS, examined by Mr. Smyth, stated: I am a ship and boat
builder. I have had about thirty-seven years’ experience. I knew the
_Alert_ and travelled in her to Geelong a few times, but not outside
the Heads. I see the model on the table. I think the _Alert_ was
finer aft than the model. Otherwise it fairly represents her. I think
she had about two feet freeboard aft, and about eight or ten feet
or more out of the water foreward. I know the weight of the engines
which were in the aft part of the ship. I knew her hull very well.
Having regard to her length, breadth, and depth, I do not think any
sane man would send a ship like that outside the Heads. I have been
in the _Alert_ in the Bay, with a south-east wind, and she was nearly
going down then. It was not a very heavy wind, but there was a nasty
sea, and she nearly drowned the lot of us. The water came in aft over
the lower part. There is no doubt that the gratings over the engine
room and stoke-hole should be secured. I would fasten them with
tarpaulins, iron cleats, and wedges. I think a glass and wooden frame
in the bulk-head of the saloon of a vessel like the _Alert_ would
be easily smashed. The glass would be a mere bagatelle against the
water. It should not have been where it was in the front of the poop
on a sea-going vessel like this one at any rate. I know the bunker
holes. The covers should be screwed down and fastened below by a bar.
They would not be secure by simply being fastened down by their own
weight in a boat like that, rolling about as she did. I think if the
vessel had had more cargo than the forty-four tons placed in her main
hold, she would have been even worse than she was. That cargo was not
right to go outside the Heads with, as the vessel, considering her
length, was not fit to carry it. If the cargo had been stowed in the
forehatch it would have put her more on even keel. It was a great
mistake to place that wooden awning on the boat. If a gale of wind
were blowing, the wind would get under the awning, and if the vessel
were lying over, it would help her to go over further without doubt.
It would keep her down when she was down. If the _Alert_ had had
another mast and sail on it, her head could have been brought up to
the wind and sea. At all events it would help in doing that.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purves: I carry on business at Williamstown.
I have built small vessels larger than the _Alert_, but never built
a full rigged ship. It was some years ago that I was nearly drowned
in the _Alert_. It was on the way to Geelong, when we were just the
other side of Point Cook. The sea came in one side and out the
other. I cannot say the decks were full, but the after part of the
boat was flooded particularly. I was not frightened, as I am used to
that sort of thing. Of course if I had been washed overboard, I might
have lost my life, but I did not think there was any great danger
so long as I had something to hold on by. The water came over both
aft and amidships. It came over the port side from the mast to the
poop, heavy seas, quite enough to wash you overboard. The fires were
not put out, but some water went down the bunker holes. One of the
bunker lids I saw off myself. I don’t know how it came off. The sea
did not go on the poop. At the time I speak of, the _Alert_ had about
eighteen inches freeboard. By freeboard I mean the distance from the
water up to the level of the deck. It has nothing to do with the
bulwarks. I still think that forty-four tons of cargo was too much
for that vessel to go to sea with. Of course if it had been placed
further foreward, it would have been better.
_Q._—You appear to think that Captain Mathieson and his crew were a
pack of lunatics to go outside with the _Alert_? _A._—I don’t think I
ever said so. I said no sane man would send such a ship outside the
Heads.
_Q._—That is pretty well the same thing. What would be the greatest
risk you would have taken in the _Alert_. Albert Park Lagoon, or the
upper Yarra? _A._—She was more fit for the Lagoon if the water were
deep enough. Even in the Upper Yarra she would not have been safe if
she encountered the wash of a big steamer. (Laughter).
_Q._—Where would you have put another mast? _A._—I would have put it
just aft of the house on deck, and fitted it with a trysail and gaff.
I am not prepared to say what size the sail should be.
WILLIAM WHITE, examined by Mr. Williams, said: I am a shipbuilder,
and have been engaged as such for fifty years. I carried on business
at Williamstown for forty years, during which time I built many
ships. I knew the _Alert_. The whole weight of the engines being
aft, she sat very low in the water. Her bow was up. Stability at sea
is gained in two ways, first by breadth and shallowness, requiring
very little ballast, or by being deep and narrow. I should say that
the _Alert_ required a good deal of ballast to make her stable.
Forty-four tons of cargo in the main hatch would not give her
sufficient stability. She would not be sea-worthy in my opinion with
it. Forty-four tons in the forehold would help to lift her stern out
of the water and put the bow down.
The _Alert_ had only one mast. In trying to bring the ship to the
wind, it would be almost impossible to do so on account of the height
of the bow out of the water, and any sail that could be set would
be so much foreward that it would be next to impossible to keep her
end on to the sea. A sail aft would keep her bow to the wind. The
best thing a ship can do in a gale of wind is to lie to. She had
a wooden awning, and that would be a very great hindrance to the
sea-worthiness of the ship. It was a very bad thing, because it would
hold a great deal of wind, and could not be taken away. In the Bay
wooden awnings are used, and it appears this vessel was allowed to
go outside with one. It would help to blow her over and keep her
in that position. As to the pantry window, I did not see it, but I
say it would be extremely dangerous placed where it is said to have
been. Every sea that came on board would rush aft, and tend to break
everything that was not sufficiently strong to resist its force. The
set of the ship in the water, being so high foreward, would naturally
throw the water aft, and it would rush aft of its own accord. The
grating over the engine room and stoke-hole should have been covered
with tarpaulins held in cleats and battened down.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mitchell: I last went to sea as a seaman about
forty years ago. I was second officer and carpenter. I have not built
any large ships, because there is nothing of that sort done here, but
I have built vessels larger than the _Alert_, and better sea-boats.
The _Alert_ was very long and lean; if she had carried a main mast
with sail, she might have been more safe.
_Q._—Did you ever measure the _Alert_? _A._—No.
_Q._—Then how do you know she was long and lean when you never
measured her? _A._—In the same way that I know you are long and lean,
though I never measured you. (Laughter.)
_Q._—What in your opinion was the cause of the ship foundering?
_A._—I always understood that—(here Mr. Mitchell complained that
the witness was going away from the subject.) Witness in a firm,
determined tone said, You asked for my opinion, and I am going to
give it to you, or I am going to give you nothing. (Laughter.) I
always understood that the ship was blown round broadside on, and
was wallowing in the sea. She became unmanageable in the trough, and,
being top-heavy, rolled over till she filled with water and sank.
JOHN MURRAY ROBERTSON, examined by Mr. Smyth, stated: I am an
engineer, employed as second engineer on the P. S. _Ozone_. I have
been about twenty-six years at sea, and I hold a chief engineer’s
certificate. I know what the dimensions of the _Alert_ were, and I
know where her machinery was. It was placed aft. She had only one
mast. The grating over the stoke-hole should have had a covering on
it of iron, wood, or tarpaulin. In my opinion it is not right to have
a window in the front of the poop in a sea-going vessel going outside
the Heads. It should be blocked up with a door, or shutter opening
outwards. If below the level of the bulwarks, it was not safe to have
such an aperture in a vessel like the _Alert_. I knew the covers for
the coal bunkers. They should have been fastened down. I think a
second mast would have been an advantage to the _Alert_.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purves: The _Ozone_ is a very fast boat, and
we often have heavy weather going down the Bay. Sometimes we have a
lot of water on the deck. Our bunker lids have something that fastens
them down when they are turned round a bit. The _Ozone_ could not
jump them off, because they fit in a socket. I should think the
_Alert_ was a sea-worthy ship if she had been further at sea. It is
often the case that a captain has to bring the head of his steamer to
the wind and lay to; when that is done, we steam easy ahead just to
keep steerage way on her. I presume the _Alert_ was sea-worthy when
the Board of Trade gave her her certificate.
Re-examined by Mr. Smyth: I would not say the _Alert_ was an ocean
going vessel. I would call her a coasting steamer.
Occasionally there is worse weather near the land than out on the
ocean. I did say there are means by which a man could batten down the
window in the poop.
_Q._—How would a man batten down on the iron frame-work? _A._—In the
iron I should put some small holes and put a plate over it. I would
make the holes with a hammer and chisel. It would take half an hour.
_Q._—Where would you get the iron plate? _A._—It is a queer ship if
there is not a bit of iron on board. Of course it would be better to
have an iron door outside fastened on hinges.
ANDREW BROWN MCKENZIE, examined by Mr. Box, said: I am a shipwright,
and have been about thirty-six years, more or less, in that business.
I have been on board the _Alert_ several times, and have known the
vessel for a long time. She had very fine lines, and was very sharp
foreward and aft. She had no bearings under her counter. Any time I
saw her, she never had more than about eighteen inches of freeboard.
To look at the vessel, she was like a snake in the grass. If the
engines had been more amidships, she would have been a better vessel.
The pantry window should not have been where it was; but being there,
it should have been protected. I knew the engine room and stoke-hole.
There ought to have been a tarpaulin on top of the grating. The
_Alert_ was very long and narrow, and should have had another mast
placed aft with sail on it to help if the engines got disabled. A
wooden awning covered the ship’s poop, and, in my opinion, it should
have been made of canvas, so that it could be taken in when blowing.
The bunker lids should have been fastened in with a turn screw, the
same as the lid of an iron tank.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mitchell: I have been eight years at sea. I
am the plaintiff’s father, and was on board the _Alert_ seeing my
son-in-law just before the fatal voyage. I have built all sorts
of ships in the old country, and have built vessels here for the
Melbourne Shipping and Coal Company.
_Q._—Do you seriously say that this ship, the _Alert_, was like a
snake in the grass?. _A._—Yes. That was my opinion of her. She was
so long and low. I did not take particular notice of the pantry
window, but if the brass bolts dropped out, the aperture could not be
properly secured. I saw the grating on the stoke-hole. I say that a
seaman could not with his hands have secured anything on that grating
to prevent the water from coming in. In times of storm it is too
late to think of these things. They ought to be provided for before
a vessel leaves a port. As a rule it is the ship’s carpenter, who,
under the instruction of the captain, sees to these matters, but the
_Alert_ had no carpenter.
WILLIAM MALONE, examined by Mr. Box, stated: I am a seaman, and
belong to the steamer _Dawn_ at present. I was engaged on the
_Alert_ last November twelve months. That was four weeks before she
foundered. I have been off and on at sea during the past twenty
years, and was on the _Alert_ when she went outside the Heads to
Bairnsdale. I never thought her a trustworthy boat for going outside.
I did not see any very bad weather in her. On one trip there was a
stiff breeze, and she did not act very well. With a beam sea she
shipped a lot of water. She took the most of the water on board
amidships, and about the alleyways. This was between Cape Schanck and
Port Phillip Heads, with a fresh, but not a heavy, breeze blowing.
The _Alert_ had no mast aft. A boat going outside should have an
after mast in case they want to keep her head to wind in a heavy sea.
There is no means of getting her head to wind without that. Her coal
and engines were in the after part of the ship, and during my time
she carried no carpenter. I was not discharged from the _Alert_. I
had a word or two with the Captain, and luckily left her the voyage
before she was lost.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mitchell; _Q._—Did the Captain accuse you of
being drunk while in the performance of your duty? _A._—No, nothing
of that kind. He could not do that, because I did not have any drink.
Some ships will ship more water than others, but in an ordinary
strong breeze a vessel should not take water on board. The water
taken in by the _Alert_ on the occasion I speak of ran out aft.
JOHN LEITH, examined by Mr. Smyth, stated: I am a master mariner.
At the present time I am captain of the S. S. _Maitland_. She is
engaged in the regular trade between Melbourne, Port Albert, and the
Gippsland Lakes. I went to sea in 1857. I was master in 1871, and
have been sailing out that way since 1880. Southerly bursters come
in that trade pretty nigh any time. Mr. Justice Williams: I wish to
goodness you would bring one along now. (Laughter.) (Here it may
be stated that during the time this trial was going on, a very hot
northerly wind was blowing, making the court as warm as an oven.) The
witness continuing, said: I know the _Alert_, and have been down the
Bay a number of times in her as a passenger. She was always well down
by the stern. She was long and narrow, with no great depth. She had
one mast only, and the engines were well aft. She was not fit to be
in a gale of wind, and gales do come along in Bass Straits.
_Q._—Assuming that she had an iron grating open about twelve feet
athwart and four feet fore and aft, was that a proper thing to leave
unprotected in a sea-going vessel of that kind? _A._—It was not in
a vessel down by the heels as she was. In a gale of wind, or any
heavy sea, everything would sweep over her, and fill the stoke-hole
and engine room. In my opinion, provision ought to have been made
for covering that grating before going outside. There ought to have
been something over it, and a very good strong arrangement, such a
thing as a skylight with flaps, that could have been opened and shut.
A tarpaulin might stand a little time, but it would not stand many
seas. I knew the alleyways between the bulwarks and the casing of
the machinery. I also remember seeing the pantry window. It was open
when I saw it in Hobson’s Bay, and they were passing food through it
into the cabin. It was right enough for the Bay traffic, but for a
sea-going vessel it should have been secured so that it would stand
the same weight of water as the bulk-head. The glass should have been
protected the same as port holes are protected, with a cast iron
port either inside or outside. I cannot bring myself to think that
a piece of glass is sufficient protection against a heavy sea. The
hole that was there was big enough to fill the saloon with water, and
cripple the ship. I could not say how many tons would go through,
but when water runs through a hole in a ship, it goes with a great
rush. With only a piece of glass between her and filling the saloon,
it is a dead certainty she would founder. I never saw a bunker-hole
with a lid resting by its own weight. It should be dropped into
notches. Forty-four tons of cargo was not sufficient ballast for the
_Alert_. At the same time I should say that one ship acts differently
to another. One could go empty, while another would require a lot
of cargo. The vessel that would go empty would have more beam and a
flatter floor, or bottom, than the _Alert_. Amidships was the best
place for the cargo, but I don’t think the _Alert_ had stability
enough for a gale of wind even if she were fully loaded. I knew the
late Captain Mathieson, and thoroughly agree with the statement that
he was a skilful seaman and a good master of a vessel. If she had a
second mast and canvas aft, the _Alert_ would have kept to the wind,
head on to the sea, with less pressure on the screw propeller. The
wooden awning, when the vessel was laid down on the starboard side,
would assist in keeping her over to leeward.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purves: The steamer I am in, the _Maitland_, is
not flat. She is round, and is a sea-worthy vessel. She can go to
sea in any ordinary weather. We trade to the Lakes, the same trade in
which the _Alert_ was when she was lost.
_Q._—The _Maitland_ knows how to roll, does she not? _A._—She does
not.
_Q._—Does she not belong to some bill-sticker? _A._—No, unless you
call the Commercial Bank by that name. There may be some bills
sticking in there (Great laughter). I remember taking the _Maitland_
down to the Heads on the afternoon the _Alert_ was lost. I did not
go outside because a strong ebb-tide was running. A gale rose with
the ebb-tide, and made the “Rip”[1] dangerous. The wind was from the
south-west, but it was not that I feared, it was the “Rip.” Had I
been able to get the ship down to the Heads earlier, I would have
gone on outside to sea. A south-west wind would not give smooth water
under Point Lonsdale. The bunker lids of the _Maitland_ have catches.
They fit in notches like the top of an iron tank.
_Q._—Supposing your gratings were open, and the ship taking water on
board, what would you do? _A._—We have none on the _Maitland_.
_Q._—But if you had a grating, how long would it take you to put a
spare jib over it? _A._—The spare jib might be stowed away in the
fore peak and not easily got at. It might take a lot of time to get a
spare sail, and then it would not be fit for the purpose.
_Q._—Would it not be prudent to make everything snug in a gale?
_A._—We always make everything snug before we leave port. We don’t
wait for a gale to do that. The _Alert_ was not a fit vessel for the
trade she was engaged in. She was a ship never meant to go outside
the Heads. She was not sea-worthy.
_Q._—Did you have any night-caps last night, Captain? _A._—No, I
don’t like them.
_Q._—How is that? _A._—Ever since I was with you, I gave them up
(Laughter).
Re-examined by Mr. Smyth: In my opinion there was nothing to prevent
Captain Mathieson, as a skilful seaman, from making his course for
the Heads. I reckon that he was as good a ship-master as any on the
coast.
MR. JUSTICE WILLIAMS: _Q._—Were you lying inside the Heads on the
night of the _Alert’s_ wreck? _A._—I came to an anchor about nine
o’clock that evening. I knew there would be a bad “Rip” on, and
therefore did not go out.
HIS HONOUR: _Q._—What was the weather like? _A._—It was a fresh gale
with fierce squalls and blinding rain. From three to four o’clock in
the afternoon it blew hard at times, and then would lull off for a
bit.
THOMAS BICKNELL, examined by Mr. Box: I am a master mariner. I have
been coasting pilot in Australian and New Zealand waters for the last
ten years, and have been in all sorts of vessels. I knew the _Alert_
well for a great number of years. I have been often on board of her,
and frequently a passenger in her to Geelong and back. I considered
her a very unsuitable boat even for the Geelong trade, or anywhere
else in the Bay; for outside the Heads she was a perfect water trap.
Her extreme length did not compare with her depth, and she had a very
narrow beam. She was very fine, with no bearings, and not sufficient
stability. Her engines and boilers were well aft, and gave her a lift
in the bow, at the same time depressing her stern. I have seen the
pantry window, but did not pay much attention to it. Placed close
to long, narrow alleyways that window would be dangerous unless
properly constructed and secured. It should have been secured from
the outside so that the pressure of water on the outside cover would
have tightened it instead of forcing its way through. Water in the
saloon of a vessel labouring in the sea would make her unmanageable.
I saw the grating. There should have been an iron door on hinges over
it, and over that a tarpaulin, because a tarpaulin in itself is not
sufficient. Forty-four tons of cargo, composed of wattle bark and
furniture, would have very little effect on the _Alert_. She was very
tender and crank. Had that cargo been iron or ballast, it would have
kept the ship out of difficulties, provided she had after canvas to
keep her to the wind. In a case like hers you lose seaway, and you
want after canvas to give the ship steering way. I saw the wooden
awning. It would help to put the vessel down, and the wind would
catch it and keep her down. It should have been made capable of being
taken in in rough weather. A vessel lying over like the _Alert_ did
would no doubt take water in every opening. Her freeboard was about
one foot eight inches, and that is very low. I have seen her with
her gunwale almost level with the water. If the bunker lids were not
properly secured, then they were dangerous. A vessel leaning over
very much is likely to throw them off. Knocking about as she was, the
water would hit against the lee cover and throw it off, and if there
was any water on the deck, it would pour down below.
[Illustration: Decoration]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The “Rip” is the name applied by seamen to a very strong, nasty
current which runs immediately at the Heads entrance. With the wind
in and the tide out, or _vice versa_, a dangerous joggle of waves
arise.
[Illustration: Decoration]
KILPATRICK v. HUDDART, PARKER & CO., LTD.
FOURTH DAY, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1895.
_Evidence for the Plaintiff._—(_Continued._)
MR. BICKNELL, cross-examined by Mr. Purves: _Q._—Are you a pilot?
_A._—I am a coasting pilot and an exempt pilot for the ports of
Adelaide, Melbourne, Newcastle, and all intermediate ports. I have
commanded many vessels, steam and sail, in my time, and have a
thorough knowledge of the Australian coast—none better. I have been
on the _Alert_ in the Bay, but never outside with her. I felt she
would be a coffin for someone sooner or later.
_Q._—Assuming the _Alert_ started from Wilson’s Promontory with a
south-easterly gale and a south-westerly sea, passes Cape Liptrap,
and gets to within two miles of Cape Schanck, carrying, on the latter
part of the journey, a trysail and a staysail, and shipping no water,
would that be an indication to your mind that the vessel making that
passage was sea-worthy? _A._—It would not.
_Q._—If Captain Mathieson was two miles off Cape Schanck, and if a
south-easterly gale veered into a south-westerly one, was he a proper
seaman to try and get an offing? _A._—Yes, he was.
_Q._—What is the most dangerous sea for a boat of small freeboard?
_A._—The most dangerous would be in the trough of the sea; when the
lee side of it lifts over and falls on top of the ship in a mass.
_Q._—Supposing I tell you that in the case of the _Alert_ three
tremendous seas coned over on top of her, would you say that was an
uncommon occurrence? _A._—Heavy seas generally run in threes—one,
two, three,—and the third is generally the worst.
_Q._—Would three tremendous seas one after the other have an
appreciable effect on a sea-worthy ship? _A._—No, I have often been
in a ship with decks flooded. She would shake the water off her
decks, and away she would go, as lively as ever. That is a good sea
boat.
_Q._—I presume you will admit that hundreds of sea-worthy ships have
been overwhelmed by the waves? _A._—Yes, some of the best ships that
ever floated have gone to the bottom. In a heavy gale of wind a ship,
even riding at anchor, often founders. She strains herself, and opens
out forward.
_Q._—Assuming that the _Alert_ was passed in England by Lloyd’s
surveyors, would that shake your opinion as to the sea-worthiness of
the ship? _A._—No, it would not.
_Q._—No matter how good a ship, how admirably proportioned, how
safely built, there may come a time in her history when stress of
weather may cause her to founder? _A._—Yes.
_Q._—Did you ever see a steamer on her beam ends in your life? _A._—I
have seen them at an angle of 45 degrees, and we usually call that
pretty near “beam ends.”
Re-examined by Mr. Box: A large quantity of water in the saloon of a
vessel like the _Alert_ would make her unmanageable. Her alleyways
were about forty feet long on each side, and four feet wide. They
would hold at least thirty or forty tons of water, and the saloon
twenty or thirty tons more. A vessel shaped like the _Alert_, flooded
with water on one side, would have very little chance of recovering.
I have been down the Bay in her with the wind blowing strong. She
heeled over to starboard when hauled up to the wind, and took a lot
of water in the alleyways.
MR. JUSTICE WILLIAMS: _Q._—We have heard a lot about these seas in
the Bay. What is your opinion of them? _A._—They are mere teapot
waves compared with what we meet outside.
HIS HONOUR: _Q._—Do the seas you meet in Bass Straits outside compare
in size with the seas you meet round Cape Horn? _A._—No, they do not,
but they are more dangerous in the Straits, because they are short,
quick, and fierce.
HIS HONOUR: _Q._—Would you be surprised to hear that in going round
Cape Horn a sea will sometimes come over the foreyard? _A._—With a
loaded vessel I would not be surprised at all. A good deal depends
upon where you are. With the wind more to the southward there is not
so much drift.
NEIL MCLAUGHLAN, examined by Mr. Williams: I am a master mariner, and
have been so for twenty-seven years. I have been a coasting pilot
about fourteen years on the Australian coast. I knew the steamer
_Alert_ ever since she came out here. She sat in the water very low
aft, and very light foreward. That was because she had very little
bearings, and had heavy machinery aft. She was not adapted for going
outside the Heads. Forty-four tons of cargo would not be enough to
trim her for a sea voyage. Of course if it had been placed in the
forehold, it would have made some difference in giving her a better
grip of the water forward. Wattle bark and furniture would be all
top weight. She was a very tender boat at the best. With another
sail aft, the captain would have a much better chance of bringing
the ship’s head up, and keeping it up. I remember the alleyways each
side of the engine room. The effect of water getting in them would be
to put the ship still further down aft, and the water was bound to
force its way below somewhere. I have seen the gratings on top of the
stoke-hole and engine. For going outside the Heads they should have
been covered with wood or iron, and I would have put a tarpaulin over
that again, with cleats to fasten it at bottom. The window in front
of the poop was composed of glass with a wooden frame. When seas came
on board, with the trim the _Alert_ was in, the water would press
against that window very heavily. It was very improper to have such a
thing there at all, but, being there, it should have been properly
guarded. A couple of pieces of iron should have been riveted on to
the bulks-head, forming a slide for an iron cover plate to go up and
down, and the whole secured with a screw bolt as well. The window
opening inwards, as it did, increased the danger very much. It was a
wrong thing to have a wooden fixed awning on the _Alert._ She would,
in a breeze of wind on the beam, be thrown over to leeward by it. I
noticed that the motion of her engines drew her stern down very much.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purves: I know Lloyd’s Register of British
and Foreign Shipping. There are no better surveyors than those of
Lloyd’s. Every ship I have commanded was registered by Lloyd’s. Still
I say the _Alert_ was not fit to go to sea. As a sea-going man of
experience, I think my opinion of equal value with Lloyd’s system of
underwriting. On account of her weight aft, her depth of hold, her
breadth of beam, and her rig, the _Alert_ should never have been sent
to sea.
_Q._—You object to the deck fittings? _A._—I object to the way she
was rigged. I mean the masts.
_Q._—Your objection is that she had only one mast, and should have
had two? _A._—Yes, that is one objection.
_Q._—Why should a steamer have any masts at all? _A._—If anything
occurred she could be navigated with sails.
_Q._—She is perfectly able to be navigated round the world without
any masts? _A._—I never heard of a steamer without a mast. If the
machinery goes well, and no emergency crops up, you could do without
a mast.
_Q._—If you were going to purchase a ship, and could not see her,
what authority would you consult? _A._—I would not purchase any ship
unless I could see her myself.
_Q._—Would not a tarpaulin over the grating, if cleated-battened or
nailed down, keep out any sea? _A._—No, the sea would burst it down
between the bars like a bit of paper.
_Q._—How many hours would it take to fill the ship, if seas were
continually thrown in, unprotected by a tarpaulin? _A._—It would take
about half an hour. The water would also go down the ventilators if
they were turned that way. I was last on board the _Alert_ two trips
before the accident occurred.
Re-examined by Mr. Williams: Ten or twelve tons of water would go
through that cabin window in a minute. Half of fifty or sixty tons of
water in the saloon would put the _Alert_ down, and she would sink
stern first.
LUCY EDITH KILPATRICK, examined by Mr. Box, stated: I am the widow of
John Kennedy Kilpatrick. I was married to him on June 4, 1891. There
is one child by the marriage called Mary. She is now two years and
five months old. My husband at the time of his death was twenty-nine
years old. He held a chief engineer’s certificate. He enjoyed good
health, and was a strong man, and always sober. Previous to joining
the _Alert_ he had been out of work for some time. His wages as
second engineer of the _Alert_ were £8 per month. When he was in the
employ of the Melbourne Harbour Trust as chief engineer of the dredge
_Latrobe_, his wages were £22 per month. Prior to that he was working
on shore, and while in work he gave me on an average £3 per week for
house-keeping expenses.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purves: During the time my husband was out of
work he earned nothing at all.
JAMES GRAHAM, examined by Mr. Smyth, stated: I am an actuary. I have
made a calculation of what a certain sum per week would be worth
as an annuity. On the basis of £8 per month an annuity would cost
£1,924 10s., and on the basis of £3 per week, or £13 per month, it
would cost £2,978. That is in the case of a man aged twenty-nine, and
assuming he was a good life.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purves: In making the calculation, I used
the “H. M. Table” prepared by the Institute of Actuaries of Great
Britain. I worked it out at 3½ per cent. rate of interest, and took
the expectation of life, for a healthy man of twenty-nine years, at
thirty-five years. I do not reckon it would be safe to calculate
interest at five per cent. now-a-days. Therefore I averaged it at a
price as a practical transaction which I would be prepared to carry
out.
This closed the case for the plaintiff.
[Illustration: Decoration]
[Illustration: Decoration]
KILPATRICK v. HUDDART, PARKER & Co., LTD.
“Between two hawks, which flies the higher pitch?
Between two dogs, which hath the deeper mouth?
Between two horses, which doth bear him best?
Between two girls, which hath the merriest eye?
I have, perhaps, some shallow spirit of judgment;
But in these nice, sharp quiblets of the law,
Good faith, I am no wiser than a daw!”
—_Shakespeare._
THE DEFENCE.
In addressing the jury on behalf of the defendants, Mr. Purees said:
Under the Marine Act, owners of ships were bound to send their ships
to sea in a sea-worthy condition, but that did not mean that the
owner should guarantee to his servants that the ship would swim under
all circumstances. The Act said nothing about the shape of the ship.
The ship could be of any shape whatever, so long as she was passed by
the proper authorities, and was reasonably sea-worthy in the opinion
of the surveyors and those who sent her to sea. All the experience
of the past in the matter of ships showed that when the Almighty
brought His forces into play, the most perfect ship that ever was
built met the time in her career when she was no longer sea-worthy.
Noah’s ark, when it sailed—if ever it did sail—was built practically
on similar lines to the ships of to-day. Some of the witnesses for
the plaintiff admitted that the _Alert_ was fitted for trading in
the Bay. If that were so, why was she not suitable for outside work.
Bad seas had to be encountered inside the Heads as well as outside.
Evidence would be adduced that would show the _Alert_ was built on
the ordinary principles of shipbuilding. She was built at Glasgow
by one of the most eminent firms in the world; was classed 90 A1 at
Lloyd’s, and sent out here under sail as a three-masted schooner,
or barque. She was employed for a time in the Geelong trade, and
although some of the witnesses had said she was not fit even for the
Bay, yet Lloyd’s surveyors had certified that she could go anywhere.
When it was decided to put the _Alert_ to outside work, she underwent
a special survey, and she had various improvements made, including an
alteration to her boilers and machinery. All precautions were taken
to make the vessel sea-worthy, and the local surveyors gave her a
certificate in November, 1893, classing her as fit to engage in what
is called “the home trade,” which ordinarily meant coasting outside
from Newcastle, N. S. W., on the one hand, to Adelaide, S. A., on the
other hand, a coast line embracing a stretch of at least 1,200 miles.
It would be proved by evidence that the alterations made gave the
ship twenty per cent. more buoyancy aft. She had an efficient captain
and a good crew; and before going in the Gippsland trade, she was
sent a trial trip to Tasmania. She went from Melbourne to Tasmania
without an ounce of cargo in her. She loaded up at the latter place
and returned to Melbourne, proving all the way that she was fit to do
the work she was intended for. Then she was put in the Port Albert
trade, and carried cargoes varying from 10 to 150 tons. She sailed
well on her last voyage, and never shipped any seas until her course
was altered towards the Heads. Within a few minutes of doing so, she
shipped three successive seas, which put her on her beam ends, and
she never righted. Ponting, the cook, was not the only one living who
saw this. There was another eye-witness whom he (Mr. Purves) would
call to prove that he saw these seas overwhelm the ship. Nothing in
the world could have saved the ship under the circumstances, and it
was preposterous to talk of the wreck being due to pantry windows,
open gratings, or anything of that sort. In his (Mr. Purves’s)
opinion Captain Mathieson committed an error of judgment in heading
his ship to port instead of keeping her out to sea. The owners had
every confidence in the ship, as was indicated in the fact that she
was fully insured.
EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENDANTS.
JOHN HORWOOD BARRETT, examined by Mr. Purves, stated: I am a master
mariner and captain of the ship _Hesperus_. She is a full rigged ship
of 1800 tons. I remember the 28th December, 1893. On that morning my
vessel was to the westward of Cape Otway. Speaking from memory, we
were steering east making round the Otway for Melbourne. The weather
then was a heavy gale from the S. W., and that was a fair wind for
me. We signalled to Cape Otway at 4.15 P. M. on the 28th, and then
continued our course for the Heads after getting the proper position.
Our course would be about north-east, half north. I came along as
far as Split Point, and then hove to because there was a heavy sea
running from the S. W. I considered it prudent to come on, as far as
the ship’s safety was concerned, but I did not think it was just to
come on to the Heads and take a pilot out of the schooner in such a
sea as that. Therefore, on account of the danger to which the pilots
would be exposed, I hove the ship to at ten P. M. till two o’clock
next morning. During all that time it was blowing a strong gale with
heavy squalls.
_Q._—I will ask you to come on board a little steamer one hundred
and sixty-nine feet long, nineteen feet six inches beam, and nine
feet six inches depth. She passes Wilson’s Promontory at nine in
the morning, goes through the Straits and on to two miles off Cape
Schanck, carrying with her a south-east gale and south-east sea,
and does not ship any water. What is your opinion of her being
sea-worthy? _A._—I should think she was decidedly a sea-worthy vessel.
_Q._—Approaching the Schanck her captain desires an offing, and takes
the ship out to windward six miles. Meanwhile the wind veers round
to S. W., and Captain Mathieson shifts his course and makes for the
Heads. He carries with him probably the same sea he had before, and
he is overwhelmed in ten minutes by several seas, and ultimately the
vessel founders. Might that not happen to any ship? _A._—Certainly;
to any vessel if she happened to keep away under those conditions.
Cross-examined by Mr. Smyth: _Q._—Supposing that when the _Alert_
got her offing of six miles without taking any water on board,
except spray—which you say was a sign of her being sea-worthy, and
that there is no apprehension of danger of any kind on board—was
there anything to prevent her then making a course for the Heads,
remembering that she was a steamship with a competent master? _A._—I
consider that the sea I experienced—Mr. Smyth: I am not speaking of
the sea you experienced. You were off Cape Otway, about sixty miles
westward of the Heads, while the _Alert_ was off Cape Schanck, twenty
miles eastward of the Heads. You say the sea had increased so much
that you would not risk a pilot.
_Q._—Assuming that there was no danger, and the evidence here is that
there was no apprehension of danger at that time when she got her
offing, and being as you say a sea-worthy vessel, with, as we know,
a skilful captain, was there any reason why the course should not be
altered to the Heads? _A._—I cannot answer anything on assumption. I
want facts.
_Q._—I have given you the facts. Was there anything to prevent the
ship going for the Heads? _A._—It is fair to assume that there must
have been a big sea running.
_Q._—It is fair to assume that you are endeavouring to play with me
instead of giving me an answer. How many years’ experience have you
had at sea? _A._—Twenty-five years in command.
MR. SMYTH: I will state the case once more. We have evidence that
at the time I speak of there was a south-easterly sea and wind.
Sometimes it is blowing a light gale, at others a strong breeze. She
makes her offing, taking no water in. She is as you say sea-worthy.
In that state of things the wind veers round to the south-west.
Whatever the state of the sea, the captain has no apprehension
of danger. What was to prevent him altering her course? _A._—The
condition of the sea.
_Q._—What was the condition of the sea? _A._—A heavy sea running from
the south-east. I assume that.
_Q._—Is that assumption of yours based on what you ascertained?
_A._—No, on what you have just told me.
_Q._—What would you have done under the circumstances? _A._—I would
have kept her out to sea the whole time.
_Q._—Do you mean to say that the sea was so bad that pilots did not
go on board of other ships that evening you were off Cape Otway.
_A._—I believe they did go on board other vessels.
_Q._—As a fact you know that the pilots did go on board other boats?
_A._—Yes; I know they went on board the French mail boat.
_Q._—And if you had gone on, they would have boarded you? _A._—Yes;
but I did not care to take a pilot on and send him back in a small
boat.
HIS HONOUR: _Q._—Did you know anything about the steamer _Alert_?
_A._—Nothing personally, except that I observed the sea, and it was
so high that we could not see the pilot schooner within fifty yards
of us.
[At this stage it was arranged that on account of the great heat of
the weather the court would adjourn until Monday 18th instant.]
[Illustration: Decoration]
KILPATRICK v. HUDDART, PARKER & CO., LTD.
FIFTH DAY, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1895.
_Evidence for the Defendants._—(_Continued._)
WILLIAM FRANCIS DEARY, examined by Mr. Purves, stated: I am inspector
of shipping, and nautical surveyor to the Victorian Marine Board;
also shipwright surveyor. I thoroughly understand the nature of a
shipwright surveyor’s work. I went to sea in 1872, and I have had
experience since that time in shipping. Apart from my official
standing, I am a master mariner, and I have had the command of ships
since 1883, until I took up my present position about five years
ago. I knew the steamship _Alert_ for ten or twelve years. In my
official capacity I have known her nearly five years. During that
time I had opportunities of surveying her, and I have surveyed her
critically. I remember a change in her equipment being made when she
went to take up the running of the S. S. _Despatch_ in the Gippsland
Lakes’ trade. Generally the changes made were in the nature of life
buoys and life boats. I know her machinery was altered. Subsequently
to those alterations I surveyed her on November 11, 1893, and gave
a declaration upon which a certificate was issued. (Shipwright
surveyor’s declaration concerning S. S. _Alert_, and dated November
4, 1893, was here handed in and marked as an exhibit.) I carefully
examined the _Alert_ on the date specified in my declaration, and
in all respects the requirements of the Act were fulfilled. Having
regard to the projected voyage, namely within the limits of the home
trade, all apertures, and skylights, and places of that kind which
would require protection were sufficiently protected. In my opinion
the _Alert_ was one of the most sea-worthy ships afloat. I knew her
lines, her tonnage, and her dimensions. I knew Captain Mathieson, and
always considered him a competent navigator. The vessel had a good
crew. There was nothing omitted in the case of the _Alert_ which was
done in the case of any other steamers licensed by me.
[Illustration: THE PANTRY WINDOW.]
Cross-examined by Mr. Smyth: Exhibit No. 10 now handed in is a
certificate granted by the Marine Board, based on my declaration
and that of Mr. McLean. He is engineering surveyor to the Marine
Board, and has the machinery and the whole of the iron-work in his
department. I have the whole of the wood-work and the deck-work. In
my declaration two life-boats are described as being in good order on
the _Alert_. If it is said there was only one life-boat and a dingy,
then I say it is false. One boat was slung in the starboard davits on
the foreside of the bridge, and the other on top of the engine room
skylight. There was a difference in their size. One was twenty
feet long, and the other fourteen feet. The fourteen-foot boat was
not whale-boat form, and some people might call it a dingy. There was
cork padding in both boats. The top of the skylight is a very fit
place for a life-boat. It would not make the vessel top heavy. In a
small ship like the _Alert_, it is hard to find a place to carry a
boat, and you have to do the best you can. She had not two life-boats
when in the Bay. They were not required in the Bay traffic. She had
boats then but not life-boats. I was appointed shipwright surveyor
when the retrenchment business began, nearly two years ago. I am not
a shipwright. I did not want the assistance of a practical shipwright
surveyor in the case of the _Alert._ I am perfectly practical enough
to carry on that work. I know there is a rule to the effect that
iron gratings over stoke-holes must be protected with iron plates
fitted with hinges, or otherwise, in a manner satisfactory to Lloyd’s
surveyors. On the _Alert_ the protection consisted of canvas covers,
which were kept ready on board for immediate use. They were not
tarpaulins, but just ordinary canvas. I think they were brought out
for me to see. There were no cleats to fasten them down, but they
could easily be lashed down to ring bolts on the deck. The canvas
might in time tear away from the grating—say in about three years.
The wooden awning was put on a few years ago for the Bay trade.
_Q._—How was the pantry window protected? _A._—It could easily be
protected.
_Q._—That is not answering my question. How was the glass window
protected? _A._—The glass was the protection, and if necessary a
piece of canvas could easily have been placed over it. The aperture
was about sixteen inches by fourteen inches, and we did not think it
was a source of danger, that is why it was not further protected. I
was in the service of Huddart, Parker & Co. some years ago. I was
second mate, mate and master in various of their vessels. I was
appointed to the Marine Board in March, 1890, about five years after
leaving Huddart, Parker & Co. I know Captain Webb. He was managing
director of Huddart, Parker and Co. up to a short time ago. He is
a member of the Marine Board. Mr. Ernest Parker of Huddart, Parker
& Co. is also a member of the Marine Board. I never in my life
designed a ship. A shipwright surveyor ought to have a knowledge of
designing ships. I never had that knowledge. I knew the covers to the
_Alert’s_ coal bunkers. They were iron, kept on by their own weight.
If necessity demanded it there was no trouble in putting four battens
and a piece of canvas over them. When making my declaration I was
perfectly satisfied that these bunker lids were quite sufficient held
down by their own weight.
Re-examined by Mr. Purves: According to the evidence given, the
_Alert_ was kept away, and I say that before she was kept away all
the places that required covering should have been seen to. Supposing
there was a drop of water about the deck, there would have been no
difficulty in making everything secure. The lids to the bunker holes
would weigh about fifty to sixty pounds each.
Re-cross-examined by Mr. Smyth: The bunker lids were about ¾ of an
inch in thickness. They might not have weighed more than forty to
fifty pounds, and they may have been an inch thick for all I know.
CHARLES WILLIAM MCLEAN, examined by Mr. Purves, stated: I am
engineering surveyor to the Marine Board of Victoria, and have
occupied that position since the inception of the present Board,
and previously I was under the Steam Navigation Board—ten years
altogether. Prior to that I was assistant resident engineer to
the Melbourne Harbour Trust. I have been as engineer on steamers
trading here on the coast, and hold a certificate as first class
sea-going engineer. I am a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers
in London. I have been engaged in supervising and designing the
actual construction of vessels. I knew the _Alert_, and saw her
very frequently. I saw her in December, 1892, when the boilers
were out. A change was then being made in her machinery. I made a
thorough examination of the position of the old machinery, and also
of the hull from stem to stern, both internal and external. I always
considered her sea-worthy. She was much fuller below the water than
she appeared to be above water. The water displaced by the vessel
when loaded down—without any cargo, but with everything ready for
sea—would weigh about 312 tons. Comparing that with the surplus
buoyancy—which is the amount the water would weigh if all the spaces
above water were filled—it was very good. The surplus buoyancy was
about 400 tons, being rather more than the displacement. That means
that there was a very fair amount of surplus buoyancy. I acted on
behalf of the Marine Board in examining the _Alert_, and I gave a
declaration to the secretary of that Board. The _Alert_ was then
plying in the Bay for a short time after. I next saw her between the
2nd and 4th November, 1893, when it was proposed to send her down to
the Gippsland trade in place of the _Despatch_ which had to be laid
up to get new engines. The owners desired a home trade certificate
for the _Alert_ to go outside the Heads. The new machinery had been
placed higher up than the old, and it was thought in doing that that
every provision had been made for outside work. The new machinery did
not alter the main freeboard at all, but raised the ship about five
inches aft. I was perfectly satisfied that the engine room protection
was quite the thing, the very best that was made, and as a result of
the examination I gave the certificate. I remember the pantry window
referred to. It was about two feet three inches above the level of
the main deck. It was fastened by two ordinary bolts running into
catches, and was quite safe.
HIS HONOUR: _Q._—Do you say that under those circumstances that
window would be as safe as a port? _A._—I think so from the way
it was made. I certainly think it was not as dangerous as a port,
because the ports are always below the main deck. Nothing more than
broken water could reach the pantry window.
TO MR. PURVES.—I recollect the stoke-hole grating, it was eight feet
wide from door to door, and about three feet six inches fore and aft.
Nothing more than broken water could get in through that grating. An
occasional sea would perhaps pass over, but no solid water would get
in there until the vessel would be over on her beam ends. There would
be no difficulty in putting canvas covers on. The bunker lids were
of a very ordinary type. I never knew of one to lift off yet. I can
name numbers of vessels that have the same lids as the _Alert_ had.
I don’t think there is anything in the suggestion that the wooden
awning rendered the ship unfit to go to sea. When the awning is lying
over at an angle of 45 degrees, the wind would get below it, and the
vessel would be lifted up. Buoyancy would be the resulting tendency.
In my opinion the _Alert_ was a stable ship, and her stability
was added to by the alterations to the engine room. Her machinery
including everything would weigh about 105 tons. In addition, she had
two ballast tanks, one of these right foreward in the fore peak would
hold fifteen tons of water, and would be most suitable for anyone
desiring to trim the ship. She was a long vessel, but her proportions
were not unusually long. The declaration given under the Marine Act
meant that she was right without cargo. We have always to assume they
may go out without any cargo. Of course cargo improves the vessel’s
stability, but we have always to look at the worst side.
Cross-examined by Mr. Smyth. I say the vessel was sufficiently stable
for ocean-going purposes without any cargo at all. Included in the
one hundred and five tons I spoke of, I allowed for coal twenty
tons, water fifteen tons, weight of boiler thirteen tons, weight of
engines twenty-six and a half tons, shafting six tons, and additions
to engine room seven and a half tons. Then there were four tons of
chain cable in her bottom. If both tanks were filled, they would
hold twenty tons water ballast. I never was master of a vessel. I was
at sea as engineer only, for about three years. I am accustomed to
calculate the stability of ships, and that is why I am able to say
this vessel was capable of going out on the ocean without any cargo.
If a number of experienced men say that forty-four tons of cargo was
not sufficient for the _Alert_, I would contradict them. Such men
know nothing of stability. I gave evidence before the Marine Board
enquiry, as I do to-day, that the boat was perfectly sea-worthy.
_Q._—Do you remember that the Marine Court found, after you gave your
evidence, that she was not sufficiently stable? _A._—No, I do not
remember that. (Mr. Purves here objected the Marine Court did not
find that the _Alert_ had not sufficient stability.)
MR. SMYTH to witness: This is what the court found. “In view of the
vessel’s construction and the manner in which laden on her last
voyage, having only about forty-four tons of cargo, the _Alert_, in
the opinion of the court, had not sufficient stability.”
_Q._—Will you now say that after you gave your evidence the Marine
Court did not find she had insufficient stability? _A._—I don’t
know what they meant, but that was their finding I believe. Their
finding may have been due to the cargo; if it was not of the kind to
add stability, the vessel would be still more unstable with cargo
than without. For all I know the cargo may have been built too high,
or been all on one side. I am not prepared to say that the cargo
was the cause of making the vessel unstable on this occasion. The
alterations to the engines made her more stable than before. Portions
of the new machinery did come higher above the deck than before the
alterations, three feet perhaps. The difference in weight between
the old machinery and the new would be about six tons. An iron plate
outside the window would have made it strong as the bulk-head. I do
not think it was one of my duties to see about the pantry window. It
was not considered dangerous. I knew it was there, and took it into
consideration when the vessel was getting overhauled in February,
1893. The certificate I gave then was for the Bay trade. When giving
the certificate to go outside, in November, 1893, I don’t think I did
consider on that particular occasion whether the window was safe or
not. From memory I fix its height above the main deck at two feet six
inches. It was like the window in the _Excelsior._ I have not passed
the _Excelsior_ as a sea-going vessel. She is a Bay trade boat, and
will require a lot of alterations before I pass her for the sea. The
_Alert_ was thoroughly overhauled in February, 1893, and in November
of the same year I simply surveyed her for giving a certificate to go
outside.
_Q._—How long were you over this November survey? _A._—I don’t
remember the time; I will say two hours.
_Q._—Mr. Johnson signed the certificate with you. Was he with you at
this survey? _A._—No, he was not, but I knew what he did. He examined
the vessel concerning her steam.
_Q._—He was there to make this examination and to give that
certificate, but he was not with you? _A._—That is so; he was there
at other times.
_Q._—We have evidence that the water went down the gratings, and that
in consequence the fires got low, and the men connected with the
engines came up from below to put on their life-belts. Was that not
on account of the water going down the stoke-hole? _A._—The water was
going somewhere. The doors must have been left open. It did not go
down the gratings that I know of.
_Q._—Assuming that the water went down the gratings, would that be an
element of danger. _A._—Yes, it would.
_Q._—And there being no protection, you gave a certificate to go
outside the Heads? _A._—Yes; the grating of the S. S. _Dawn_ is the
same.
_Q._—Has not the _Dawn_ a very much larger freeboard? _A._—I don’t
know.
_Q._—Do you know the dimensions of the _Dawn_? _A._—Yes, she is one
hundred and fifty-four feet long, twenty-four feet beam, and eighteen
feet in depth. She is not the same class of vessel as the _Alert_.