There is a source of easy profit (which in the vernacular would be called a racket) for some people that has not achieved all the notoriety that it deserves; it is known as “swell damage.” Many a casualty due entirely to poor handling, fragile construction, defective or inadequate gear, is converted from an apparent loss into a clean profit by the adroit gentlemen who know how those things are done. From day to day in all of our commercial ports there are cases of small craft damaged by wind or weather, wave, or mishandling, which causes lines to snap and hulls and structures to be bashed in or the craft to be swamped by seas that injure the cargo along with the vessel. When such damage occurs it is a sad commentary on human nature that the first thing that is done in many cases is to seek to blame some big ship that has passed at or near the time that the damage occurred, and to charge that the cause of the damage was the “huge” waves which the passing big ship caused to sweep over the “innocent and properly handled” small ship or tow.
In many of these cases of alleged “swell damage,” where the claims are small, the owners or insurers of ships charged with such swell damage” pay, even though they know they are blameless, rather than undergo^ the expensive and generally distressing litigation involved. One of the softest targets^ for this thing is the Navy; though, having a permanent legal staff, it is more likely to fight than the private owner, but generally with the same sad result.
Recently, retained as an expert in court, I heard a weird, wondrous tale of alleged smashing of a tow by seas which were generated by a destroyer proceeding at 5 knots. It was said that the huge billows produced by the destroyer overtaking the tow nearly wrecked the whole tow and caused great loss to the owners of the boats and the cargo. The strange thing about this case, which occurred in Long Island Sound, was that there was very little disagreement concerning the vital tactical factors in the evidence. The commanding officer of the destroyer and his officers testified that when they overhauled and passed the tow, at no closer than several hundred yards, the speed of the destroyer was not over 5 knots (both the destroyer and the tow were bound west near Execution Rock). All on the tugboat and on the towed craft admitted that the destroyer was proceeding at very slow speed when it passed but claimed that it was the “huge waves” sent out ahead of the destroyer when it was going over 15 knots some distance astern that overhauled the tow and wreaked dire damage. From the agreed upon factors in the evidence it was physically impossible for the destroyer to have generated a wave that would have done any damage to the claimants, but nevertheless good old Uncle Sam was mulcted for the damages. The vivid imaginations of the blunt-spoken, honest-appearing witnesses for the claimants paid good dividends. A typical feature of this case, often observed in similar ones, was that there were several “disinterested” witnesses who had observed, and duly described in vivid testimony, the catastrophical commotion in the waters of the Sound caused by the destroyer at the time it passed the tow (at 5 knots!).
Such is sea life on our coasts and in many of our ports. “Swell Damage” materially helps to swell the Admiralty courts’ calendar. This is not meant to stigmatize towboat, barge, or small craft owners in general as racketeers, in fact their marine morals are probably just as high as those of any people engaged in the shipping business; the only thing is that there is a substantial fragment in every area who cannot resist “the irresistible temptation” to which they are often subjected (I realize that I am borrowing a phrase from Sir Julian Corbett’s England in the Seven Years’ War, when he excused a bit of British perfidy on the grounds of the “irresistible temptation to which the incredible stupidity” of the French subjected them). A large number of small shipowners whose craft are damaged from any cause whatever are inclined to endeavor to make some big ship pay for it. And, in case there is a big ship that could have been speeding fast enough, and was in the vicinity of the alleged damage at the alleged time that it occurred, then there is a good chance that the owner or insurer of the big ship will foot the bill, and a liberal bill it generally is too. In all but a very few cases that I have observed, where there is any damage proved to have occurred and charges launched against a big ship, proved to have passed the vicinity at the time, the big ship’s owner paid. It seems that all it was necessary to prove was that the harbor craft had been damaged and that the big ship could have done the damage. In some cases it seemed to me that it was not any too well established that the damage, if there really had been any damage, had actually occurred on the date or at the time claimed.
There are interesting and important aspects of this question. In the first place, small craft in all of our harbors suffer a tremendous amount of damage due to poor handling, overloading, defective and inadequate towing gear (vide some of those big fleets of large barges towed by one small, feeble-powered tug), and other accidental causes; and when the inevitable damage occurs it is only human nature for some small shipowners to try to retrieve the expense from someone else. And the reason, I think, that the courts are so willing to give the small ship sufferer the benefit of the doubt (and the amount sued for) is that there really are numerous cases where much damage is done by ships speeding too fast in the wrong places. In most of those cases the officers conning the culprit craft plead innocence, and there is no doubt that they actually do think that they have been guiltless since they are unable to perceive the distant effect of the waves generated by their own ship. Often, too, I think that the judicial thought is, “damage has been done, the big ship could have done it, the big shipowner has the biggest purse”; and the big ship owner pays!
Many do not realize the damage swells sent from their ship can do. Often I have had people tell me they had carefully observed that their ships on a certain occasion had not produced a swell that would affect objects at a distance—but the contrary was actually the case. There was an interesting example of this many years ago. I was navigator of the U.S.S. Newport, moored at the foot of East 24th Street, New York, in the same slip with the New York Yacht Club float. One afternoon a passing destroyer, speeding to the Navy Yard, caused a terrific swell that shook everything in the slip and severely banged up boats moored therein. The Club was very friendly to the Navy so no report was made. Later, I met the captain and officers of the destroyer in the Navy Yard and they indignantly denied that their vessel had caused sufficient swell on the occasion to make a ripple in the dock. All were fine, truthful men, who thought that they were telling the truth, but the fact was that they could not see what the swell did when it went into the slip between the piers.
Within close limits the wave generated by a moving ship travels at a velocity of one half of the speed of the ship and proceeds on a course diverging 45° from the course of the ship. Thus, a ship steering north at 10 knots would generate a wave with a speed of 5 knots and the wave from the starboard bow would move on a course of 45°. My experiments indicate that the wave continues with undiminished speed but gradually diminishes in size until it vanishes.
In the case of the destroyer mentioned off 24th Street, New York, if it had passed, say 200 yards off the pier heads, the wave that entered the pier heads would have been generated that distance (200 yards), astern of the point where the pier heads were abeam and would have had some 283 yards to travel before it entered the pier heads (hypothenuse of a 45° right-angled triangle with 200 yard sides) and in the same time that the wave made that 283 yards, the destroyer would have made 566 yards and have been 366 yards past the entrance to the piers. Obviously, those on the bridge, even if they had looked astern, could not have seen what the wave did when it went to work inside the piers.
From the bridge of a ship, and the higher the bridge the truer this is, the undulations in the sea sent out by a ship appear small and innocuous. For that matter, as long as the waves proceed in deep water without obstruction they do not stir up much commotion, but when they topple over in shallow water, or meet an obstruction and the energy of undulatory motion is transformed into a wave of translation, then the motion of the water changes so that often tons are sent sweeping horizontally with devastating effect. Of all floating objects, a heavily loaded barge is the most vulnerable to this sort of wave motion. Often a small boat will be unaffected by a wave that wreaks havoc to other things. I was out in a rowboat once, off Sea Gate, Long Island, when a big liner passed inward bound. The boat just bobbed up and down on the swell but when that wave swept the beach a few hundred yards in, it washed all before it well inland.
Mixed with the subject of swells as a cause of damage is the complicated one of suction, which in constricted waterways and even in open ones causes apprehension. Ships passing at a speed that hardly causes a ripple will frequently snap the lines of ships moored along their course. Even the most experienced are likely to ignore the dangerous potentialities inherent in the suctional characteristics of their ship. When the ill-fated Titanic sailed on its first and last voyage from Southhampton, England, though conned with care by the premier pilot of the port, it speeded a bit too fast and sucked several big ships away from their piers, snapping heavy doubled mooring lines as if they were paper ribbons. The fine American Liner New York, from which I had just been detached, was pulled right away from her berth.
Deep study should be given to this subject, with special regard to the particular characteristics of the ship conned, so as to avoid swell damage especially in constricted waters. It is important to avoid doing damage and at the same time be able on any occasion to present proof that one is innocent of such charges.
Mark it well, suppose one conforms to correct concepts and actions concerning speed and maneuvering, is that a sufficient guarantee that he will not be baited for a good bite in the “swell damage” racket? No, indeed, one must not only be good but be clever in this wicked world to keep out of trouble, especially in marine matters. And the best example of cleverness essential to balk being bled in this business is to keep a meticulous log record of courses, speeds, and especially the time of passing points. The record of aids and points passed should show these so closely spaced that the speed of the ship can be calculated at any time with irrefutable accuracy and produced months hence if required. The rough log is the important document. I have seen many naval and merchant marine rough log books of little litigational value. The smooth log is not of much importance, what counts is what is written up in the “bell book” or rough log at or immediately after the occurrence.
There was a recent case of an attempt to loot a liner on the west coast in a swell damage case which failed because the master was one of those “martinets” who are sticklers for observing speed and safety precautions and above all in keeping a complete, careful rough log record of speed and data pertaining to passing points and navigational aids. It was charged that his ship had sent out the usual “huge billows” which had swept in and swamped a barge. This charge was made weeks after the alleged occurrence. Production of the rough log and a few simple calculations showed that the ship had made less than 5 knots when passing the point of the alleged damage as well as elsewhere in the constricted waterways of the port, and the barge owner had sadly to seek another victim.
An example of good log keeping is afforded in the record of the old American Line that for many years operated the fine liners St. Paul, St. Louis, New York, and Philadelphia across the Western Ocean in the hardest trade on the seven seas with remarkable freedom from accidents or claims. Efforts to bait and bleed the line in the “swell damage” and other games were frequently frustrated by the complete and competent log records kept. Deck and engine-room logs could show the speed at any time, and the deck log gave a complete record of courses steered in channels from turn to turn, the distance off and time of passing objects. When the ship was slowed for any purpose to avoid sending a sea over a vulnerable craft, there was an entry setting forth the circumstances in detail. This was a simple and effective protection. In some cases where the data revealed that there was a probability that swell damage could have been caused by one of the ships of the line, the reimbursement for the damage was made with satisfaction on both sides. This close and detailed manner of keeping records had an excellent secondary effect in developing keen, methodical navigational and operating practices.
There is one well-known warning concerning log books and records that is worth repeating because it is so often ignored in practice. That is, never erase anything once entered. If an error is made, cross it out, but leave it so that it can be read, and write in the correct entry in an adjacent space and initial both. The dark finger of sinister suspicion always points at an erased entry in a log book.
It is well to remember, if one has to deal with swell damage and related occurrences, that the lay of the land often has a vital effect. Ships bound one way at a certain speed can cause catastrophe by the waves generated; while if they are bound the other way, with all other conditions the same, the waves will be harmless.
In closing, it is of value to mention that ships in formation rounding a given point will frequently generate a heaped up wave, of much greater magnitude than a single ship could cause, with ruinous results upon an object. There are many situations in which this condition can occur. Suppose a column of ships bound north is turning east, if one of the leading ships on the easterly course had an object bearing southeast, its wave would strike that object, as would the wave of a following ship still bound north that had the object bearing northeast, and if the speeds and distances were such that the two waves arrived at the same time a much greater commotion would be caused than if one wave alone struck the object. It is obvious that this condition can be greatly aggravated when there are a number of ships maneuvering.