Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry

Report

 

    PART III.

     

    WHICH SHIP WAS TO BLAME.

     

    The question as to who, if anyone, is to blame for the collision in this case depends largely on which of the two stories put forward by the respective owners of the vessels is to be accepted. The main difference between the two stories is to be found in the description of the way in which the two vessels were approaching each other at the time the Empress of Ireland changed her course, after having obtained an offing from Father Point.

    Father Point is the place at which the Empress of Ireland, the outward bound ship, had dropped her pilot, it is also the place at which the Storstad, the inward bound ship, was to pick up her pilot. It is situated on the south side of the river.

    The witnesses from the Storstad say they were approaching so as to pass red to red; while those from the Empress of Ireland say they were approaching so as to pass green to green. The stories are irreconcilable and we have to determine which is the more probable. Times, distances and bearings vary so much even in the evidence from witnesses from the same ship, that it is impossible to rely or to base conclusions upon them. We have, therefore, thought it advisable to found our conclusions almost entirely upon other events spoken to by the witnesses and upon their probable sequence in order to arrive at a solution of the difficulty.

    While the Enquiry was proceeding and before the position of the wreck had been ascertained, the Court asked Captain Kendall and Mr. Toftenes, the Chief Officer of the Storstad, to mark on a chart the place at which they thought the collision had taken place, and they did it. They were in reasonable agreement; but they were both wrong, possibly to some extent because the chart used was a small scaled chart and it was difficult for the witnesses to be precise. But the position of the wreck has now been definitely ascertained. It is lat. N 48° 37' 30", long. 68° 22' 0", to the south of' both the points marked, and in our opinion that position fixes with sufficient accuracy the spot where the collision took place.

    Upon the Empress of Ireland leaving Father Point, her course was N 47 E magnetic. This is a usual course. Her engines had been put at full speed; but we think that she probably never reached that speed at any time before the collision. Her maximum speed was probably at no time more than 14 or 15 knots. Later on, her course was altered under a port helm to N 73 E magnetic. The exact point at which this change was made is uncertain; but it was a customary change for outward bound vessels. It was shortly before this change that the two vessels first sighted each other, and they were then at a distance of six to eight miles apart. This was about 1.30 a.m. (Montreal time) and at about this time the Storstad set a course of west by south from which the witnesses from that vessel say she was never subsequently changed. The bearings of the two vessels, one to the other, are matters of uncertainty; but both agree that neither at this time nor at any time before the lights were shut out by the fog which subsequently surrounded them, did their relative positions involve risk of collision. The Empress of Ireland, according to her own account, had been a crossing ship; but at such a distance as to involve no risk of collision, and before the fog shut out the Storstad lights, she had, according to Captain Kendall, ceased to be a crossing ship, and was safely green to green. According to Mr. Toftenes, the Empress of Ireland was a crossing ship until she altered her course to N 73 E magnetic, when, he claims that she ceased to be a crossing ship, and made a course towards the Storstad which brought the two ships red to red. This manoeuvre is said by Mr. Toftenes to have taken place when the two ships were about 1 1/2 to 2 miles apart, and is described by him in these words 'as far as I could see she was then just keeping on my port side - going clear on my port side', intending to pass port to port, and leaving ample room if both ships kept their courses.

    After carefully weighing the evidence we have come to the conclusion that Mr. Toftenes was mistaken if he supposed that there was any intention on the part of the Empress of Ireland to pass port to port, or that she, in fact, by her lights manifested the intention of doing so; but it appears to us to be a mistake which would have been of no consequence, if both ships had subsequently kept their courses.

    Shortly after the ships came into the position of green to green, as claimed by Captain Kendall, - or red to red, - as claimed by Mr. Toftenes, - the fog shut them out from each other, and it is while they were both enveloped in this fog, that the course of one or the other was changed, and the collision brought about. From the evidence adduced on behalf of both vessels, it is plain that before the fog, and when they last saw each other there was no risk of collision if each kept her course. Therefore the question as to who is to blame, resolves itself into a simple issue, namely which of the two ships changed her course during the fog.

    With reference to this issue, it will be convenient to deal with the evidence connected with the Empress of Ireland first.

    No witness speaks of having seen her make any change of course during the fog, and those who were on board, engaged in her navigation, distinctly deny that any change whatever was made. The question which naturally arises, is, why should she change her course? She had been set on the proper course for her voyage, and she was in a thick fog, and it was her duty to keep her course. What object could be served by changing her course? Mr. Haight, the counsel for the Storstad, felt this difficulty, and he set up more than one theory to explain the suggested change. He was at first of opinion that some one on board had starboarded the wheel. He said ' It is my idea that one man, perhaps the second mate ordered his wheel ported, and that another man ordered the wheel starboarded', and when asked why? he says, 'It is exceedingly difficult to say why, unless the position was supposed to be safe, and the fog shut us out, and the course was going to take them a little out of their ordinary way, and the big steamship said 'we have speed enough and room enough, and we can cross his bow'. Later on in the case the Captain of the Storstad when under examination, was asked by the Court whether he could suggest a reason for the alleged change of course of the Empress of Ireland and his answer was ‘I cannot say; but I might think when the fog set in the ship was trying to get farther out in clear weather.'

    There is, in our opinion, no ground for saying that the course of the Empress of Ireland was ever changed in the sense that the wheel was wilfully moved; but as the hearing proceeded another explanation was propounded, namely, that the vessel changed her course, not by reason of any wilful alteration of her wheel; but in consequence of some uncontrollable movement which was accounted for at one time on the hypothesis that the telemotor steering gear was out of order, and at another by the theory that having regard to the fulness of the stern of the Empress of Ireland the area of the rudder was insufficient. Evidence was called in support of this explanation. It is not necessary to examine this evidence in detail. The principal witness on the point as to the steering gear was a man named Galway, one of the quartermasters on the Empress of Ireland. He had made two voyages on this ship. He stated that on one occasion going up the river, and while he was at the wheel in a narrow passage below Quebec, called the Traverse, the vessel behaved in an extraordinary manner, sheering to port against a port wheel, and only missing by 40 feet, a schooner which was approaching. He further stated that between 8 and 12 o'clock on the evening of the 28th of May, when the Empress of Ireland was going down the St. Lawrence, an incident of a different kind occurred, viz: that when he put the wheel over to port 'the gear jammed for the matter of a few minutes' and he had to pull it in order to make it work again. Another similar incident, he said, occurred in his previous voyage when the vessel was in the Mersey. He said that he reported the jamming incident to Williams, the second officer on the bridge (who was drowned) and to the pilot, Bernier. He said that he also mentioned the matter to Quartermaster Murphy who relieved him at midnight. Pilot Bernier and Murphy were called and denied that Galway had made any complaint whatever to them about the steering gear. It further appeared that he had given a statement to some newspaper reporter about the collision, and that he had given a very full account of it to the solicitor for the owners of the Empress of Ireland; but that he had not mentioned the steering gear to either of them. Galway gave his evidence badly and made so unsatisfactory a witness that we cannot rely on his testimony. Some evidence was called, however, to confirm Galway. This was the evidence of three men and the pilot from another Norwegian collier, called the Alden, a boat under time charter to the Dominion Coal Company, who were the charterers of the Storstad. These witnesses spoke to having passed the Empress of Ireland on her way down the river, about 9.20 (Montreal time) on the evening of the 28th May, and they said she was swinging and steering badly, changing from red to green several times. The witnesses do not speak of any behavior of the vessel which would suggest 'jamming/ and it is to be observed that the allegation that the vessel sheered from side to side on this occasion, is entirely different from the allegation of Galway that the wheel jammed, an event which so far from making the vessel swing from side to side, would keep her head swinging one way.

    On the other hand we have the evidence from the officers on board the Empress of Ireland, and of her pilot, all of whom affirmed that the steering gear was in perfect order, and worked well.

    A further point that was made by Counsel for the Storstad was an admission by Murphy, the quartermaster of the Empress of Ireland. He said with reference to the wheel that, "It might be that it does not catch, and what you have to do is to put your wheel back amidships, and give it the helm, and it will catch on right away."

    He stated, however, that this had only occurred once during the 4 years and 5 months for which he had been quartermaster of the Empress of Ireland. We do not attach any importance to the incident.

    On the whole question of the telemotor steering gear we are of opinion that the allegations as to its condition are not well founded. We have consulted our advisers and they concur in this opinion.

    Then a suggestion was made that the area of the Empress of Ireland 's rudder, having regard to the fulness of her stem, was not large enough to enable the ship to steer well. We mention this to show that we have not overlooked it; but we dismiss it from further consideration inasmuch as we are satisfied that here too no real complaint can be made against the steering of the ship.

    This disposes of the evidence put forward in support of the suggestion that the Empress of Ireland changed her course by reason of circumstances which were beyond the master's control.

    It is necessary, however, to refer to a manoeuvre of theEmpress of Irelandcommenced when the lights of the Storstad first began to grow dim in the fog, and continued for some uncertain time after. This manoeuvre consisted of reversing her engines full speed astern. That this manoeuvre was in fact executed we have no doubt. It was evidenced by appropriate whistle signals from the Empress of Ireland which were heard by the Storstad. When Captain Kendall was asked to give his reason for his order to put his engines full speed astern, he explained to us that knowing the Storstad was in the vicinity he wished to take the way off his ship and bring her to a stationary condition. He thought this a prudent course. It was said on behalf of the Storstad that the order was probably given because the Empress of Ireland had become unmanageable by reason of her defective steering gear. We cannot accept this suggestion; but we do think the stopping evidences uneasiness on the part of Captain Kendall and a consciousness that his ship was possibly in too close proximity to the Storstad. We think that he would have been better advised if he had given the Storstad a wider berth, and had navigated his ship so as to pass the Storstad at a greater distance on his beam than he originally intended. We do not think, however, that his stopping, which was really done for greater caution, can be said to have been an unseamanlike act, nor do we consider his failure to give the wider berth as a contributory cause of the disaster.

    It is now necessary to consider the position and conduct of the Storstad with the view of ascertaining whether it was she who changed her course.

    It is admitted that those on board the Storstad did that which in ordinary circumstances would change her course, and that they did it in the fog shortly before the accident. They ported, and they hard-a-ported the Storstads helm. Assuming that she answered to this hard-a-port helm the effect would be to bring her head round to starboard in the direction of the Empress of Ireland, and if she continued under this helm the effect would be to bring her into collision with the Empress of Ireland.  It was said, however, that the porting of the helm although done while the ship was in the fog, was an act of prudent navigation, because it was done to counteract the effect of a current which exists in the locality; and it was further said that by reason of this current and by reason of the fact that the Storstad had little or no way on her, the porting had no effect on her course, which remained W by S as it had been for half an hour or more before. We are unable to accept this view. Mr. Haight, in his statement made to us before any evidence was called, informed us that Mr. Toftenes, who was in charge of the Storstad, had explained to him that the object of porting the helm was to c make sure of ample room,' and this is no doubt true. No current was then mentioned. Then the character of the damage done to the Storstad bow (which we have seen) satisfies us that considerable way must have been on her at the time she dealt the blow on the Empress of Ireland 's starboard side. Captain Kendall said that at the time of the collision his ship was lying in the water, stopped dead, and that therefore no movement of his ship contributed to the force of the impact. This is perhaps doubtful. We think that although his engines had been reversed for some minutes, Captain Kendall may be mistaken in supposing that way had been entirely taken off his ship, and it is possible, therefore, that to some extent her movement may have contributed to the force of the blow. But the fact remains that the Storstad ported her helm and changed her course, and so brought about the collision.

    It may be asked what induced the men in charge of the Storstad—Mr. Toftenes and Mr. Saxe—to port and to hard-a-port the helm? The explanation is fairly plain. They believed (wrongly as it turned out) that the Empress of Ireland was passing their ship red to red. They wanted, as Mr. Toftenes said to Mr. Haight when he gave his first version of the story ' to make sure of ample room/ and they ported in order to secure it. Unfortunately the Empress of Ireland was passing green to green rad so far from the porting securing more ample room, it brought the vessels into closer proximity, and then into collision.

    We are further of opinion that Mr. Toftenes, the officer in charge of the Storstad, was negligent in omitting to call the captain when the fog was coming on. At this time the captain was asleep in his room; but he had left orders that in the event of fog coming on he should be called to the deck, and there was a standing order on his ship to this effect. It is of the last importance that when a ship encounters a fog her navigation should be in the control of a man of experience and of judgment. In this case no step was taken to bring the captain to the deck until too late. The captain is the man who ought to have been there. Mr. Toftenes says that he thought there was no danger and therefore that it did not matter. He was wrong; there was danger, and any way it was his duty to obey the order which he had received to call the captain when the fog came on. ,

    We regret to have to impute blame to any one in connection with this lamentable disaster and we should not do so if we felt that any reasonable alternative was left to us. We can, however, come to no other conclusion than that Mr. Toftenes was wrong and negligent in altering his course in the fog, as he undoubtedly did, and that he was wrong and negligent in keeping the navigation of the vessel in his own hands and in failing to call the captain when he saw the fog coming on.

    It is not to be supposed that this disaster was in any way attributable to any special characteristics of the St. Lawrence Waterway. It was a disaster which might have occurred in the Thames, in the Clyde, in the Mersey or elsewhere in similar circumstances.

    Such is the conclusion at which we have arrived on the question as to who was to blame for the disaster. But a question of much greater public interest and importance remains to be considered, viz.: why the ship sank so quickly, and what steps, if any, can be taken to prevent the terrible consequences which so often follow from such disasters.

     

    < Part II | Top of Report | Part IV >