The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-04 00:00:00

OFFICIAL REPORT•

THE SCHOONER SPARKLING FOAM.
GREENWICH POLICE COURT, JAN. 30.
My Lords.—l have the honour to transmit, for
your lordships' information, the:evidence adduced
before me on the investigation into the loss of the
schooner Sparkling Foam, on the 23d of December
last, on or in the neighbourhood of Margate Sand, and
to report the conclusions to which, with the assis-
tance of Captain Harris as Nautical Assessor, I have
come with respect to the conduct of the Master, as
connected with the loss of the ship. The Sparkling
Foam was a schooner of 188 tons burthen, built in
the year 1858, at Jacobstadt, in Finland, and pur-
chased by her present owners, Mr. George Timothy
Sims and another, in the early part of last year.
The tow-rope, the breaking of which caused the
loss of the ship, was part of her furniture when pur-
chased, and is said to have teen then to all appear-
ance nearly new. When produced in evidence, it
had the appearance of decay in parts, and could
hardly bo considered capable of bearing heavy
straining or violent jerks in towing. The crew of
the schooner consisted of the Master, Fraser Mackie,
holding a master's certificate of service, one mate,
holding a master's certificate of service, and six sea-
men, The schooner left London at 5 a.m. of the 23d
of last December, with a general cargo, bound for
Berbice. On leaving dock her draught of water was
10 feet 6 inches aft, and about nine feet forward.
She was under the charge of Mr. William Fairbairn,
an able and experienced Trinity House Pilot, who
was unfortunately drowned when the ship broke
upon the sands. After stopping at Gravesend for
an hour to pick up a seaman (who was also subse-
quently drowned) the schooner proceeded on her
voyage, and passed the Girdler Light probably
about 5 p.m., though this, and in fact every other
circumstance connected with her navigation, even
to the exact place whore she went aground, is left
in the greatest uncertainty by reason of the extra-
ordinary contradictions between the story told by
those onboard the schooner on the one hand and that
told by those on board the tug on the other. It is
quite impossible to reconcile these stories with each
other, or either of them with entire probability, and
by the death of the pilot, we are left to conjecture
the true cause of the ship's loss, and the degree in
which (if at all) any one besides himself could be
held responsible for it. The extent to which the two
narratives, that of the tug and that of the schooner,
contradict each other, may be judged of by the op-
posite accounts given of the breaking of the tow-
rope and of the final disappearance of the vessel—
those on board the tug asserting that the rope
broke four times before the ship touched the ground,
and that, after the rope broke the last time, she
passed under the tug's stern with her head to the
northward, and making way for half a mile, as if
running up channel ; whilst, on the contrary, the
crew of the schooner contend that the rope broke
only thrice, the third time being after she took the
ground, and that, after taking the ground, her head
cast to the southward in the direction of Margate
Lights, and that she never moved from that spot
till she broke up. Between such conflicting state-
ments, when the object of each party seems to throw
blame on the other, the only safe course in judging
of the master's responsibility is to confine ourselves
to his own admissions and the evidence of his crew,
and to such facts as are fairly to be deduced from
an impartial source. Looking at the case in this
light, it may be assumed that the following leading
facts are proved, viz. :-Istly. That it was blowing
a strong breeze from the eastward, with a heavy
sea on, when the schooner was passing down the
Prince's Channel. 2dly. That the rope with which
she was being towed, though of sufficient size, was
not trustworthy, end that from 25 to 30 fathoms of
tow-rope, which was all that was given out, was
not sufficient scope in such weather. 3dly. That
though the master at starting is not shown to have
been aware of any defect or insufficiency of the
rope, he must have been made aware of this by its
repeatedly breaking. 4thly. That, notwithstand-
ing the repeated warning of the dangers of proceed-
ing in tow under such circumstances, no attempt
was made to anchor or run up channel. And lastly.
That, in consequence of the imperfection of the
rope, or, as the master alleges, of the improper
manner of towing (which, however, if true, would
have been an additional reason for not proceeding),
the ship gets aground, and goes to pieces with the
loss of two lives. This is a state of facts upon
which, if there had been no pilot on board, the
master could hardly have escaped censure. It is
impossible to conjecture what explanation the pilot,
had he survived, could have given to justify him-
self and reconcile his conduct with the character
given him. In the absence of evidence exonerat-
) ing the pilot under such circumstances, it would be
unjust to condemn the master, particularly as he
stated that he did suggest to the pilot the propriety
of coming to an anchor. If such a suggestion was
offered it would make the conduct of the pilot more
reprehensible as well as more accountable, though
his disregard of it would not, I conceive, justify the
master in insisting upon this suggestion being fol-
lowed. Upon the whole circumstances of the ease,
therefore, as far as we have been enabled to ascer-
tain them, the only conclusion which can be come
to, consistently with the recognised doctrine of law
in reference to this subject, is, that the master of
th de-
fault, e Sparkling Foam is not chargeable with a
withinthe meaning of the statute, in respect
to the
loss of the vessel, he having a properly qua-
lifi3d pilot on board, Whose province it was to de-
termine the course to be pursued, and who, it is
to be presumed, did determine to pursue the course
which terminated unhappily in the loss of the ship
and of his own life, and that of another person.
It will be observed that the master did what lay
in his power to save the lives of those on board.
Nothing could be done for the vessel, whierls
broke up very quickly, and hardly a vestige of