"THE DEATH SHIPS."

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1856, 16 September 1913, Page 5

"THE DEATH SHIPS."

SERIOUS INDICTMENT.

HOW BRITISH VESSELS ARE LOST.

"If a ship be laden too deeply she has 110 lile, and -is powerless to lilt out of the way of tho seas marching to smash/' so writes Mr. .Edward Noble ill a. striking articlo in the London '.'Daily Mail." Continuing, Mr. Noble says

in March, 1906, Mr. Lloyd-George made British shipowners a present of nearly a million toils of shipping. One million tons without building a single new ship. It sounds impossible, yet was accomplished .by one of thoso wizard strokes of the present Chancellor of tho Exchequer which have been so stingiiigly in evidence of late. And ho did it by a mere stroke of the pen. liy a simple Order-in-Cbuiicil, witnout debate in the House of Commons, without the knowledge of publicists, it was made law. It was an Order — nothing more. ,But it permitted ships to bo more deeply laden, to carry deck loads which luthorto had been prohibited. It obliged shipmasters to load by a measurement rule which had been approved by tho associations, which means engineers, and was anathematised by sailors. It compelled them to load deeper than had been possible during all the years since Plimsoll fought battlo in tho interests of British seamen. A new mark was placed on the ship s side which signified that it had become legal to cwry so many additional ton? m each ship, and it was no longer possible to prosecute masters or owners of ships for having immersed the centre-line of the Plimsoll disc. The Plimsoll mark, then, died with that.Oi'dcr.

Now; behind all this thero was of necessity a driving force, something strong and virile,. against which the British shipowner had fought for years. That force was foreign competition. J) oicign ships csnie into our "harbours m open competition with-us. but laden more deeply, carrying deck loads which it was illegal for British ships to carry, and against this, it was said, we had no chance.

A big question, you perceive, was before the Marine Department of the Board of Trade; one demanding como knowledge of tho conditions of service afloat. The President could move in one of two directions. Either lie must compel all foreign vessels entering or clearing our harbours to adopt the Plimsoll mark, or ( he must as quickly and quietly as possible bury the Plimsoll mark. In tho one case Government would be compelled to face the burden of foreign displeasure and perhaps retaliation; in the other the displeasure of sailors—persons who to all intents are voteless.

The method adopted was a hole-and-corner dodge unworthy the Board of Trade, unworthy its spokesman in the House of Common* It was known that shipmasters .and officers objected on the score of increased risk. It was known that many surveyors and , assessors considered that ships were quito sufficiently deep ■ under, the Plimsoll Act, find of my own experience I am able to vouch for it—yet this Order was made.'

Increasing Losses. In the period 1908-11 we lost 200 more lives in foundered and missing ships than in the similar period 1902-5. We lost fewer ships in tho interval selected by this, reassuring return, but a greater tonnage. I havo no faith in statistics. They leave me cold. Tho.v aro alluring; but they are inconclusive when ddaling with varying conditions. The sea is infinitely changeable. No two years are alike. We may get a series of gales such as those of recqnt winters, and wo may not. It is in the lap of the gods. We plume ourselves that we do not make more than an average number of losses per annum, and wo loso sight of the fact that in an honest contest it is our duty to lose none.'

the year ending June 30, 1910, 265 British ships were totally lost'. The average animal number lost during the previous twenty years was 240." A jump, in this report, of twenty-five ships. Courts oi Inquiry held in the ease of missing and foundered vessels have found in some instances that the loss "was due in the main to insufficient freeboard]," that is to say, the vessel was too deeply, though not ■ illegally, laden. Again, ships have turned turtle and have vanished in every conceivablo fashion; or they have struggled back to port -with twisted decks and ripped plates, beato.n/by the sea. But it is impossible in the space at my disposal to go more fully int-o the statistics of years already beginning to- fade; yet I would note one or two cuttings of events which have happened within memory— events which will bo remembered long by those who have awaited the, breadwinner's return.

Two Millions In One Cale. "In the first four months of last winter (1911-1912)" —I quote from the "Morning Post"—"twenty steamers were reported missing, thirteen 'had foundered; or had been abandoned, and there was serious loss of life. Every sailor knows that the chief cause of this is the alteration of the loadline, also that tho average steamer loaded down to 'her marks with a dead-weight cargo has a poor chance of surviving a really bad gale." A poor chance 1 In, all my writings on this .subject, I have never set down- harsher comment. Again, on January 23 of this year "The Daily Mail" gave prominence to the record underwriting losses of one gale. It gave the names of seven vessels "which are reported or are about to be reported missing," and added that thirty others weTtr wreoked. The value of the and cargoes was £2,000,000. This last instance I use only to show the immenso power of tho sea on vessels laden under the now law. Some of these ships aro foreigners—but we are loading to-day as tho foreigner has compelled us to load, im an unseaworthy fashion, in nn un-English fashion, and the inclusion is warranted. Hear Lord Muskerry. who lias fought this question in the House of Lords for years. "It seems," ho said in a. sjwch not long ago, "little short of criminal that ships are allowed to be still more deeply laden in order to come into line with the German flag. Immediately that change in the load-line was. brought about we know that it was followed by tho loss of vessels and the loss of lives."

The Sailors Know, The designer of ships says there is no added danger in the now load-line. Sailors join issue with him. Designers clony that a vessel can turn turtle, they deny tho "suction theory," and tlioy denied that the Titanic could sink; but sailors know better. If a ship bo laden too deoplv slie has no life and is powerless to lift out of the way of seas marching to smash. If she carrv a deck load she is doublv handicapped. The seas are inelastic. They move with a vast momentum. If you fill a tin. box with bricks and hurl it against a wall the box will be smashed. That is what happens in these days of brittle and lightly-constructcd, too-large ships. These vessels go to sea unsurveyed. Witness the exodus of the Thistlenior a few hours aftor leaving Cardiff. Was she seaworthy? Nay, the seas broke her up. She was overladen—-legally, mind, now that the Plimsoll law is dead—ami she passed as others have passed and will. Some with deckloads which incapacitate them, some with furniture vans or giant boilers oil deck which no man can secure against tho "scend" of a seaway. Some without deckloads, but scupper-deep, inert punchers, my Masters, at the brick wall of waters which rises to confront them as they struccle tho spume.