Battling with waves and lawyers : $b a genuine history of perils of the deep and an authentic record of the most important shipping case ever dealt with in the supreme courts of Australasia
History
Battling with waves and lawyers : $b a genuine history of perils of the deep and an authentic record of the most important shipping case ever dealt with in the supreme courts of Australasia
Alert (Ship : 1877-1893); Liability for marine accidents; Navigation -- Australia -- History; Shipwrecks -- Australia -- Victoria
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.)
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account