by Stan Mason
It was a Godsend to a very worried Captain Winchester. His ship had been restrained at Gibraltar for more than seven weeks. It was not only costing him freight money while out of circulation but also running up expenses. As soon as she was released he would need money for a new crew and, in view of his eagerness to sail the Mary Celeste from Gibraltar at the earliest opportunity, plans were required in advance. Captain George W. Blatchford, from Wrentham, Massachusetts, would have to come out to take charge of the ship and continue to Genoa. In fact, he had already left the United States, and the costs were starting to mount up. Despite his sympathy and generosity, Appleby secured the loan with the hull of the Mary Celeste, proving his astuteness was well ahead of his youth.
Captain Winchester moved fast from Cadiz, shortly before King Amadeus resigned the Spanish throne and a Republic was declared. He went to Lisbon and wrote to Consul Sprague, announcing his intention to return to the United States. This communication upset Consul Sprague greatly, for he had hoped of better things of the Captain. The intentions of the owner of the Mary Celeste were totally unexpected, causing the infuriated Consul to refer to the U.S. Department of State about the matter on the twelfth of February.
“I have now to report the return to the United States of the Mary Celeste’s principal owner, Mr. Winchester, who had come out to represent his interests and those of underwriters before the Vice-Admiralty Court of this city. He never announced his intention to the Court, and at the time of leaving Gibraltar he gave parties here to under- stand that he was merely going on a short pleasure trip to Cadiz. I have since received a letter from him dated, Lisbon the 6th February, announcing his determination to return to New York by the Anchor Line Steamer Caledonia then about leaving that port.”
A fuller explanation was sent to the Consul in a letter written by Captain Winchester on the tenth of March, 1873, shortly after he arrived back at New York. He enclosed some of the documents left behind in his haste to reach Gibraltar which included a Power of Attorney, duly legalised from Simpson Hart - the latter acquiring his interest in the vessel through loans to Captain Briggs. Captain Winchester declared that, on arrival home, he discovered that his wife’s condition of health had grown more serious. His anxiety concerning her was one of the contributory causes of his unexpected departure from Gibraltar; moreover, his presence there was accomplishing very little. He was under considerable expense and his business at home was suffering through his absence. He mentioned that a gentleman had approached him at Gibraltar and told him that after the Judge and the Queen’s Proctor had used up every other pretence to cause delay and expense, they were going to arrest him for hiring the crew to make away with the officers. He added:
“The idea was very ridiculous, but from what you and everybody else in Gibraltar has told me about the Attorney-General, I did not know he might do it, as they seem to do just as they like.”
Therefore, when he left Gibraltar he expected to return but, after talking with the Consul at Cadiz, he decided to go home.
No one could really blame the Captain for running scared when Solly Flood represented the opposition. In addition, there was a lost Captain and crew, a restrained vessel, a stagnant cargo, other freight business in abeyance, a lack of money and a hint of conspiracy and murder. It was a lot to have to suffer!
In effect, the Mary Celeste was released on the twenty-eighth of February, 1873, after bond had been given for her ship and cargo. Captain Blatchford reached Gibraltar on the fifth of March. He signed a receipt on the sixth of March for a long list of articles belonging to the Master and crew of the Mary Celeste which included property belonging to Mrs. Briggs and her daughter, to be returned to the United States.
The Mary Celeste, having rested at Gibraltar from the thirteenth of December, 1872, until the tenth of March, 1873, - a period of eighty-seven days - finally proceeded with her new Master and crew to Genoa, arriving there on the twenty-first of March. This latter journey of eleven days took the Dei Gratia twenty-four days to complete only two months earlier, under the command of Oliver Deveau. Captain Blatchford had specific instruct--ions to deliver the cargo and sail directly to Messina in Sicily in order to collect the return charter of fruit, previously arranged. However, the vessel was hove down in Genoa in order to have her bottom surveyed, the upshot of which caused the Messina fruit-shippers to cancel the charter party. Ironically, the Dei Gratia arrived at Messina on the twenty-ninth of March, collected the fruit.....the cargo originally destined for the Mary Celeste.....and departed on the twenty-seventh of April.
Cause and Effect
On the fourth of March, 1873, the Court at Gibraltar reconvened once again in their final effort to find the culprits.....at least that was the major hope of Solly Flood. It was both his burning desire and that of the Judge to question First Mate Deveau on the stand. The fact that he left Gibraltar on the twenty-third of December, 1872, in command of the Dei Gratia, leaving Captain Morehouse behind, had not been forgotten. The summons recalling Deveau from Genoa, where the ship had docked on the sixteenth of January, 1873, had been delivered successfully. The First Mate was very displeased to have to relinquish his command temporarily in order to take passage by a steamer back to Gibraltar, but he had little alternative. Indeed, he was left in no doubt that the Court still entertained the idea of some act of violence having been responsible for the abandonment of the Mary Celeste.
Sir James expressed his view clearly, telling Deveau that his action in leaving Gibraltar was most reprehensible. He also commented on the fact that it was very strange the Captain of the Dei Gratia.....who knew little or nothing to help the investigation.....should have remained in Gibraltar while the First Mate and crew who had boarded the derelict should have been allowed to depart. He was just as angry at the absence of Charles Lund who had also received a summons to return but remained in Genoa claiming to be indisposed through having strained his back. The previous evidence of witnesses was read out in open Court before the proceedings began once more.
Flood: Why did you take command of the Dei Gratia on the recent voyage to Genoa, when Captain Morehouse could have done so?
Deveau: The ship had been waiting with a cargo of petroleum from the twelfth of December until the twenty-third of December. It was costly to maintain a crew of eight.
Flood: I accept that it was desirable to Defray costs by ultimately discharging the crew, but did you not realise that the investigation into this matter had not been completed, and that your presence was required here?
Deveau: I thought we had finished all that.
Flood: Finished! We have not even started. For what reason did Captain Morehouse send you to Genoa?
Deveau: He is the representative of the owners of the Dei Gratia and, as such, he is empowered to receive the salvage money when it is awarded by the Court.
Flood: Is there not another reason?
Deveau: Yes, I believe that he was acting under instructions from the owners.
Flood: Nothing else?
Deveau: No. I think he believed that the salvage award would be decided quickly and wanted to receive it himself.
The Queen’s Proctor did not believe the explanation of the witness for one moment but he was unable to pursue the matter ad nauseum.
Flood: Very well, Mr. Deveau. Did you see the remains of a painter or boat’s rope fastened to the rail of the Mary Celeste?
Deveau: No, I did not.
Flood: Did you notice any mark of an axeon the rail or cut? I present to you a drawing of this mark.
Deveau: (Examining the illustration carefully) I did not see this cut, to notice it.
Flood: How do you imagine this occurred then?
Deveau: I cannot say. It appears to have been done with a sharp axe.
Flood: Could it have been done by one of your men whilst in possession of the vessel?
Deveau: No, it wasn’t.
Flood: Were there any new axes on board?
Deveau: I didn’t see any new axes on board the Celeste.
Flood: Any old ones perhaps?
Deveau: There was an old axe that we found.
Flood: Did you not replace the rails of the ship, found on the deck, before you returned to the Dei Gratia the first time?
Deveau: I did not.
Flood: Then the original crew of the Mary Celeste removed that section of rail when they got out the boat to leave the ship?
Deveau: That may be the reason.
Flood: Can you explain why this had to be done?
Deveau: The Celeste had no bulwarks, but was a flush-deck ship with open rails fore and aft.
Flood: Why was this fact not mentioned before......about the removed section of rail?
Deveau: I was never asked.
Flood: That remark is typical of much of the evidence given to this Honourable Court in these proceedings. Can you form any opinion on the cause of the axe cut on the rails?
Deveau: No.
Flood: How did you find the rails?
Deveau: When I went on board I found the rails on both sides lying on the deck, lashed or fastened at one end.
Flood: Did your men replace them with lashings, or take off the lashing from the ends of the rails that were lashed?
Deveau: I can’t say.
Flood: What kind of an answer is that Mr. Deveau? Either they did or they did not!
Deveau: I cannot recall. There were so many things to do.
Flood: Could the rails have fallen of their own accord?
Deveau: The rail fits in tight in a socket and it takes some force to remove or raise it and also to replace it.
Flood: What sort of lashing was used?
Deveau: It was a temporary rope. The lashing was not a regular tight lashing.
Flood: Could it be that there was no boat at all?
Deveau: Well, there was the appearance of one boat having been on board.
Flood: What kind of tackle would be used for hoisting the boat on or off the deck?
Deveau: I couldn’t see any means or tackle for so doing.
Flood: May we come to the conclusion that the boat must have been launched?
Deveau: I suppose so.
Flood: But you are certain there were no remains of a painter or boat’s rope fastened to the rail.
Deveau: Certain.
Flood: Were there any marks of blood Observed on deck?
Deveau: There were no marks of blood.
Flood: Any traces of blood?
Deveau: I can’t say whether there were or not.
Flood: Did you wash the decks of the Mary Celeste?
Deveau: No, we didn’t.
Flood: Or scrape them?
Deveau: We didn’t have enough men for that. The sea washed over the decks.
Flood: Now that’s very interesting. You see, my investigations have led me to understand that the salt water of the sea contains an element of chloric acid which has the ability to dissolve particles of blood. If the sea was allowed to wash over the decks it is almost certain that traces of blood or blood-stains would have been removed. Were you aware of these facts?
Deveau: I was not.
Flood: But there were some parts of the deck and rail scraped. Was that the work carried out by you or your men?
Deveau: If there are some parts of the deck or rail scraped, I did not notice them, and they were not done whilst we were aboard.
Flood: Did you know there was a sword on board the Mary Celeste?
Deveau: I saw it there. I found that sword under the Captain’s berth.
Flood: Did you handle it at all?
Deveau: I took it out from under the berth and drew it from its sheath.
Flood: Was there anything remarkable on it?
Deveau: Nothing.
Flood: Please examine it again.
He motioned to the Court Usher to pass the Exhibit to the witness for examination.
Flood: Is there anything remarkable about it now?
Deveau: I don’t think so. It seems rusty.
Flood: What did you do with it?
Deveau: I think I put it back where I found it, or somewhere near there.
Flood: At the foot of the ladder?
Deveau: I did not see it at the foot of the ladder.
Flood: Well who could have put it there?
Deveau: Perhaps some of my men.
Flood: Well what did you think when the Marshal came aboard and found the sword at the foot of the ladder?
Deveau: I was not on board the Celeste when the Marshal arrested the ship and therefore I did not see him find the sword.
Flood: (To Sir James Cochrane) I would like to suggest, My Lord, that this sword has been cleaned with lemon, which has covered it with citrate of iron. This has destroyed the marks of the supposed blood which therefore is not blood at all, as it was first supposed, but another substance put there to destroy and disguise the original marks of the blood which were once there.
No one will ever know whether the Judge was able to follow this line of argument, or whether he considered that the Queen’s Proctor had entered the realms of the fantastic. However, he nodded as though he had understood the reasoning and allowed the Advocate to continue.
Flood: It is interesting to note the report of Mr. Austen the Surveyor of Shipping, with regard to the peak halyard.
Deveau: I have stated that I found the peak halyard on the Mary Celeste broken when I went on board. I had a fresh rope put in its place.
Flood: The Surveyor claims that he did not find the rope spliced or mended.
Deveau: I had a fresh rope put there, not a new rope. That accounts for the Surveyor’s report.
Flood: How did the halyard break?
Deveau: I cannot say. It was a very old one and had been spliced.
Flood: Can you honestly swear whether there were signs or not of any act of violence on board the Mary Celeste?
Deveau: It did not occur to me that there had been any act of violence. There was nothing to induce one to believe or show that there had been any violence.
The Queen’s Proctor was saddened by these responses, recognising that the proceedings were dwindling into obscurity. He tried to keep up the pressure for a while but it had no effect on providing a solution to the mystery. It had become obvious that Deveau would continue to stonewall in a very dour manner. Either he knew nothing, in which case his answers were honest and correct, or he knew everything and intended to bat out his innings in Court calmly and defensively. It was necessary for him only to stand fast and merely respond to the plethora of questions about maritime procedures and details about the state of the Mary Celeste. In time to come, it would be observed that many questions which should have been asked were not and, apart from the limitations of lack of information, the inquiry would be indicted as having been cursed with incompetence.
There were ten days to wait for the result of the salvage award and two more days before the decision was released by the Court. The New York Sun published an item on the twelfth of March, 1873, which did little to assist the hopes of Captain Morehouse and his crew. It boldly splashed the headline:
“The Abandoned Ship: No Mutiny But a Scheme to Defraud The Insurance Company.
The stories in regard to the desertion of the Brig Mary Celeste, with another ship recently found abandoned in mid-ocean, are not credited in Custom House circles. Mention is made of several suspicious circumstances to show that more selfish motives than the revolting of sailors and the slaying of their officers might have prompted the abandonment of the vessel. A Sun reporter was informed that the Mary Celeste had been improperly cleared and sailed under false colours after
going out of this port. It was charged that deception was resorted to for the purpose of getting her registered as an American vessel. She was built at Parrsboro, Nova Scotia, in 1861, and formerly sailed under the British flag being known as the Amazon. In 1870, she took her present name, and was afterwards registered as American built. Deputy Surveyor Abeel discovered the deception a few months ago, and took measures to seize the brig on her next arrival in port....”
Naturally, this item brought a swift response from Captain Winchester who, in the New York Herald, hotly denying that there was any truth in this allegation, or that his company had been party to a conspiracy. He was reported to have said:
“The ship was correctly registered under the American flag and that reports published about this vessel being illegally cleared and sailing under a false flag are base fabrications, as anyone interested in the matter can discover by referring to the Custom House and the officers of the companies with which we are insured.”
Ultimately, on the fourteenth of March, 1873, the Vice-Admiralty Court gave judgement in the case of the derelict Mary Celeste. The Gibraltar Chronicle summed up the matter succinctly in its edition on the following day:
“In the Vice-Admiralty Court yesterday, the Hon. the Chief Justice gave judgment in the Mary Celeste salvage case, and awarded the sum of £1,700 to the Master and crew of the Nova Scotian brigantine Dei Gratia for the salvage services rendered by them; the costs of the suit to be paid out of the property salved. The Mary Celeste was valued at $5,700, and her cargo at $36,943, total $42,643, so that the award may be set down as one-fifth of the total value. The Judge further thought it right to express the disapprobation of the Court as to the conduct of the Master of the Dei Gratia in allowing the First Mate, Oliver Deveau, to do away with the vessel which had rendered necessary the analysis of the supposed spots or stains of blood found on the deck of the Mary Celeste and on the sword, and his Lordship also decided that the costs of the analysis should be charged against the amount awarded to the salvors.”