The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-03-10
THE TORNADO.


Ere whereby the British ship Tornado was
destroyed, as an inquiry which did not IN
ufiire, and as o first class piece OF white
washing, IL 90 remarkable, and In some re-
spects 30 curious as to call for some notice at
our hands as q matter of general interest to
our commercial community, who may at any
time have dealings with British ship-masters.
And we would first call attention to the
fact that the reasonable security for which
the shipping act provides was, In this case,
provided for only by the employment OF but one
man to watch both the ship and the unloaded
portion OF her cargo lying on the wharf. caus-
ing him to spend portion of his time there,
there being no man on watch whose whole
attention was to be given to the vessel.
For the rest, we desire simply to sunmar
lie the findings and the testimony. as we con
slider that, taken together, they are their own
best commentary ....=.
T. Finding "Due care was taken In the
stowage OF the cargo
Testimony Enough loose cotton to loosely
fill half bushel measure, soaked with tut-
pentine, was pulled from q bale sent down to
be slowed, on the upper tween deck, in the
neighborhood OF the foretnast. The bale was
rolled one side and the cotton laid beside it,
The bale. 1t Is true, was taken on deck and ex-
a,nned d second time before being slowed,
but no one knew. what became Of the loose,
turpentine-soaked cotton, and no evidence
was adduced to show that any effort was
made, or any care taken, to have 1t removed
Neither does any one know when or where
that bale was finally slowed though the
captain was informed that 1t had been done,
and said 1t was all right. Yet due care was
taken
q. Finding Capt Colburn told Capt. Ellis
that he could put out the fire In ten minutes,
and have the ship ready to unload Ia forty
minutes
Tsstimonu- only evidence on this point
was that OF Capt. Ellis and Mr.. Candy, both
directly and chiefly Interested. though Capt
golburn was present and might have been
examined In reference thereto
3. Finding evidence uf Mr. ?. II. Ting
ley. of the bark Thomas keillor, which laid
outside the Tornado, given In the presence of
the gentlemen who represented the Protector
Company, and which remains unc0nfruiicted,
leads us to think that little or no gas was
pumped on board the Protector until o'clock.
or nearly two hours and a half after the as
Eurance had been given that the fire could be
put out In ten minutes.
Testimony Williams, chief mate of
the Tornado declared that he felt something
passing through the hose. Capt. Kalinslsi, of
The salvage corps. testified that the "Prutec-
tor arrived at the scene about ten to twelve
minutes past six; that shortly after the
hose was laid out the ha ,l closed, and
4. Finding A lamp was lowered into the
hold at o'clock, and came up tlnextnguished.
7sstinofg. The only evid, nee on this point
was that OF Capt; Iingley, who, said It went
after house Let it be remembered here that
this was about seventy-tive feet aft of the
place where the fire originated, with cottoR
slowed between.
8. Ftndfng--Up to midday, smoke, as of
burning wood aud cotton. was emitted from
under the main hatch
Testimony Capt. Crosby thought It was
samoke; was not sure. Capt. lingley was
positive that 1t was smoke both were igno-
heard Of t before, and neither had lever be-
fore seen 1t applied. Capt Kalnsd, q twenty
years fireman, familiar with the use of the
gas, swore positively that there was no
smoke.
@. Ftadiup- gas was re-appied by the
master, after consultation with several COM
petent persons.
Testimony It was shown that the consulta-
ton referred to was with Bailey. Schultz d
Leeeh, and Capts Cam and Tingley. The lat
ter himself testified that he knew nothing of
the gas, and no evidence was ELECTED to show
that the other four, or either Of them, were
competent persons TO give advice in the
premises. The finding on that point Is gratu
itous.
Thus we have seen what Wds done. Now
let's see what was not done.
/. No attention was paid or weight given to
the testimony of Kalinsld, an experienced
fireman, familiar with the appliances used by
the Protector" and having knowledge Of the
amount of chemicals consumed by her in the
generation Of gas on this occasion, when it
came in conflict with that of the three men
Capts Ellis, Crosby and Tingley-who con-
fessed ignorance.
.. No opportunity was afforded the counsel
or representatives of the Protector" to cross
examine or suggest questions though these
privileges were extended to Capt. Ellis.
3. No effort was made to procure testimony
as to the efficacy of the gas; as to the oppor-
tunity afforded Capt Ellis to Inform himself
on that score; or as to the probability or i'm
probabilityof the alleged ten minutes propo-
stion, though we confess that as to the latter
point there was but little need of inquiry as
its ahsurdity would be apparent to ten
year old boy.
The summing up and main finding, result
logically from those we have given above
and are
1. There is no evidence to show how the fire
originated. q
a That no one is crminally responsible for
the fire. o
B. That the master is In no way to blame for
the destruction of the property contided to
his care d
As to the first, 1t is not important in this
connection. AS to the second it is difficult to
see how a master, who spows that a eale of
cotton with a part of its contents soaked with
turpentine, had been found on board his
vessel. and who fails to make inquiry or
making inquiry, stops short of Information,
as to whether any of the saturated cotton re-
mains In his vessel, can escape criminal
responsibility" As to the third, if thaOi is
fair finding In regard to one who. entrusted
with interests Of such magnitude $50 in the
hour of peril, everything by turnsO and
nothing long," then-we give it Up.
We had intended to follow the foregoing re-
sumo of the case with something in the nature
of criticism, but on reading it over we