by Stan Mason
Deveau: I’m not a man frightened by ghosts. In my opinion, no one was about so I took appropriate action.
Flood: But you were not certain of that fact at the time. You see, had you suggested that you kept Johnson and Wright away in case yellow fever was a possible cause of absence of the Master and crew it might have been accepted, but you have failed repeatedly to submit any such response. You had no idea what you would find yet you told the others to keep away and made the investigation alone. What was the real reason, Mr. Deveau? Was there someone on board that you didn’t want the others to see?
Deveau: Of course not.
Flood: Then why the secrecy? Why keep them all away? We shall see wha evidence the others provide us with later on, but I warn you that I am not satisfied. You actually examined charts your found under the bed in the very brief time you were aboard. In fact you took less than half an hour to sound the pumps and do all that was necessary - and still examined the charts from under the bed.
Deveau: I probably stayed on board about an hour.
Flood: In that case you could not possibly have reboarded her by 3 p.m.
Deveau: It must have been 4 p.m. then when I returned.
Flood: There appear to be many inaccuracies in your story but searching under beds and examining charts left there seem to warrant as actions of the least priority and hardly acceptable under the circumstances. Even more incredible is your account of the way the decision was made on whether to take in the Mary Celeste for salvage or not. You state that Captain Morehouse was concerned for the crew and for his ship. In my opinion, most seamen would give their eye-teeth to lay their hands on such a vessel. Did you not show anger when the Captain hesitated with his decision?
Deveau: I was very angry. I felt that we could split the crew and earn ourselves a handsome award.
Flood: You argued with him and he still refused to budge. What did you consider with regard to his attitude - that he was acting over-cautiously?
Deveau: Perhaps.
Flood: Indeed, I realise that you are still employed by Captain Morehouse outside the walls of this Honourable Court. You see, Captain Morehouse must have known that the crew would insist on bringing the other ship to port. Why was he so loath to agree? Was it because he wanted to appear loath to bring her in? Did you take writing materials with you when you first boarded the Mary Celeste?
Deveau: No.
Flood: Then, in your state of mind, and with all the things that had to be done, it appears remarkable that you could recall so accurately all the items and instruments required which you took with you. You chose Anderson and Lund to go with you the second time. Were these men your friends? Did you go to different places together in New York?
Deveau: Yes, as a matter of fact we did.
Flood: Did you go anywhere with the Second Mate or Johnson in New York?
Deveau: No.
Sir James Cochrane intervened eventually to state: “Before the close of the day, I would like to re-examine the witness.” His opportunity arrived in due course and he continued questioning Deveau.
Sir James: Mr. Deveau, was the Mary Celeste Listing when you boarded her?
Deveau: The vessel was perfectly upright whilst I was on board.
Sir James: Was there any evidence that she had been on her beam ends at any time?
Deveau: I saw no signs whatever to induce me to Believe that she had been on her beam ends. If she had, her hatches would have been washed off.
Sir James: Suppose she had been thrown on her beam ends and her hatches had all been closed?
Deveau: She might have righted again without her cargo shifting, or without showing any indication.
Sir James: What is your opinion with regard to abandonment?
Deveau: My idea is that the crew got alarmed, and by the sounding-rod being found lying alongside the pumps, that they had sounded the pumps and found perhaps a quantity of water in the pumps at the moment and, thinking she would go down, abandoned her. The pumps would be sounded, perhaps, every two hours or four hours. In order to make entry in the log of ‘pumps carefully attended to’, the pumps should be sounded every watch, or every four hours. If the vessel were leaky, more often. The fact of finding the vessel with only four feet of water when I boarded her, shows that she made little or no water - about one inch in 24 hours, and therefore I conclude that all the water found in her went down her hatches and through the cabin.
That was the end of the proceedings of the first day. The Court was adjourned to Friday the twentieth of December, 1972, much to the relief of First Mate Deveau. Nevertheless, there were many inns location in Main Street where, with his mates, he could drown his sorrows.
Further Evidence
The Court was reconvened two days later and commenced with the same traditional pomp and circumstance. All parties attended, without exception, including their legal advisers, and Oliver Deveau was recalled to the witness-box so that the proceedings could be resumed. Sir James Cochrane ran through some of the main points of the case briefly before reverting to the witness, cautioning him that he was still under oath. However, he was surprised when the witness approached the Court voluntarily to make a minor admission.
Deveau: I wish to correct a statement I made on Wednesday, namely that the hour at which the Captain called me was half-past one It was 3 p.m. when I boarded the vessel we found abandoned.
Sir James: Yes. Mr. Deveau, what is the tonnage of the Dei Gratia?
Deveau: About two hundred and ninety-five tons.
Sir James: The same as the Mary Celeste. And the number of crew?
Deveau: Eight hands, all told.
Sir James continued to question the witness over old ground and then decided to retire for the moment. He turned to the Queen’s Proctor to pass on the baton.
Sir James: Mr. Flood, would you care to continue with your examination of this witness?
Flood got to his feet, anxious once more to challenge the witness head-on.
Flood: I would like to determine your progress in the Dei Gratia towards the latter part of November and the first part of December. Did you sail north or south of the Azores Islands?
Deveau: We passed north of the whole group of the Azores.
Flood: Is that usual for the voyage to Gibraltar?
Deveau: Some vessels go to the south and some to the north. I myself have only passed to the north of the Azores.
Flood: May we refer to the appearance of the Captain’s cabin? It was mentioned that the bed appeared as though a child had been in it. In your opinion, was there room in the berth for the Captain, a woman and a child?
Deveau: It was small but there was sufficient room.
Flood: Did you find any articles of child’s wearing apparel?
Deveau: Yes, there were, and a number of child’s toys as well.
Flood: What was the state of the bed?
Deveau: It was as it had been left after being slept in.
Flood: Then it was not made! Here we have an unmade bed in a small cabin housing a man, his wife and child. The bed is unmade, and in the galley - as you testified earlier - the tables were clear. Does not that infer that abandonment of the vessel occurred early in the morning?
Deveau: Perhaps.
Flood: Was there any female clothing that came to your notice?
Deveau: I noticed an old dress hanging near the bed. There was also a pair of india-rubber over-shoes. The dress was dirty, as if worn.
Flood: Was it wet?
Deveau: No. The bedding was wet though. water had got through the windows near the bed, or probably, it might have got through skylight.
Flood: But the windows had been battened up.
Deveau: Yes, there had been rain and squalls the morning we found the Mary Celeste but I don’t think it was that which wette
d the bed.
Flood: Did you find any other clothing during the remainder of the voyage?
Deveau: There were two boxes of clothing, containing male and female clothing.
Flood: Was the clothing wet?
Deveau: No, it was not.
Flood: Did you find any more clothing?
Deveau: I afterwards found some clothing in two drawers under the bed which I took out and put into the second box which was nearly empty. The clothing found under the bed place was mostly men’s clothing, and some of it was wet.
Flood: What sort of clothing was it? Do you think Captain Briggs took his wife and child on the voyage?
Deveau: No doubt at all. The clothes were damp, although I cannot say how they got damp. There were a few old hats and a pair of sea- boots also.
Flood: Was there any chance that the clothes were those of a passenger?
Deveau: It was the usual sort worn by men and women. There were also work-bags, with needles, threads, hooks, buttons, and a case of instruments. There was dressing case and other things in the drawers. The two boxes were in the cabin. There was also a writing-desk, a valise case which I could not nor did not open, and There was a bag of dirty clothing hanging up in the water closet.
Flood: Did you examine it?
Deveau: Yes, it contained the clothing of a man, a woman and a child.
Flood: There is no doubt, therefore, that, accompanied by the information in your possession, Captain Briggs took his wife and child on the voyage.
Deveau: No doubt at all. The clothes were damp although I cannot say how they got damp.
There were a few old coats and a pair of sea-boots also.
Flood: Was there any chance that the clothes were those of a passenger?
Deveau: Not a passenger, but of a sea-faring man.
Flood: Did you discover any damage by fire or any appearance of fire or smoke in any part of the ship?
Deveau: No. None at all.
Flood: You are certain that there were plenty of provisions and water on board the vessel.
Deveau: I am.
Flood: Just one final point, Mr. Deveau. May I direct your attention to the chart marked Exhibit C. Would you examine it for a moment. Did you find this chart on board the Mary Celeste?
Deveau: I found it on board with the ship’s course marked on it. I used it afterwards myself for our track here.
Flood: What are the words written on it and in whose handwriting?
Deveau: Mary Celeste, abandoned the fifth December, 1872, in my writing.
Flood: How did you know that the vessel had been abandoned on that date?
Deveau: Because that was the date we found her.
Flood: Then why did you not write “Mary Celeste, found abandoned on the fifth December, 1872”? From the Log she appears to have been abandoned some nine days earlier, but you seem to have ignored that fact.
Deveau: It was an unintentional error.
Flood: There is also a mark on the chart situation just past the Azores. Can you explain why it is there?
Deveau: I put it down merely by guess on the place where I supposed we found the vessel as nearly as I could.
Flood: What about these arrows?
Deveau: The arrows shown on the chart show the way the currents are supposed to run, but they often practically run just in a contrary direction.
Flood: Forgive me for being naive, but previously you pleaded ignorance with regard to the currents. Now you point out you had clear evidence at the time concerning the direction they are supposed to run.
The Queen’s Proctor found his seat and allowed silence to settle in the Court before Sir James Cochrane continued with his re-examination.
Sir James: Mr. Deveau, did not the Dei Gratia and the Mary Celeste pass to the north of the Azores?
Deveau: We passed to the north of the group, but the Mary Celeste passed to the south.
Sir James: From the spot marked on the chart as the last position of the Mary Celeste on the twenty-fourth of November, how many miles would you say existed between there and the place you found her?
Deveau: I should say it would be from five or six hundred miles.
Sir James: And what was the wind direction in the interval between the twenty-fourth of November and the fifth of December?
Deveau: As near as I can tell it was blowing from the north to south-west. That information will more correctly appear in the Log of the Dei Gratia.
Sir James: How fast was she moving when you first saw her?
Deveau: She was going steadily from 1½ knots to 2 knots, with the wind on her beam.
Sir James: Would she run steadily before the wind with her rudder unlashed, or would it be impossible for her to do this?
Deveau: Practically impossible.
Sir James: Yet she is supposed to have done so. You say that the wind was northward but her head was to westward. I think you told us that before.
Deveau: Yes, she was then going in the opposite direction to ourselves and had probably changed her course more than once.
Sir James: If that was the case, when you met her she was moving towards you?
Deveau: That’s correct. She was going backwards.
Sir James: Were the berths of the crew tidy and their clothes gone?
Deveau: No. The men’s clothing was all left behind. Their oilskins, boots and even their pipes, as if they had left in a great hurry.
Sir James: Why do you say that?
Deveau: A sailor would generally take such things especially his pipe, if not in great haste.
Sir James: What of those items missing?
Deveau: The chronometer, sextant, and navigation book were all absent. The ship’s register and papers were also not found. There was no Log-line ready for use. The carpenter’s tools were in the Mate’s room. The water casks were on chocks, but the chocks had been moved as if struck by a heavy sea.
Sir James: And the provision casks. Were they thrown over?
Deveau: They were below in their proper place. They would have only been thrown over if the vessel had been capsized.
Sir James stopped at that point, having concluded his re-examination of the witness, and he motioned to the Registrar to present a copy of the evidence for the witness to hear and agreed. Shortly, he entered at the foot of the testimony:
“The evidence having been read to the witness by the Registrar in open Court, and corrected as it now appears, he stated that it was all correct, to the best of his belief.
Edward J. Baumgartner, Registrar
20th December, 1872”
Deveau returned to his seat with the crew of the Dei Gratia in the Courtroom, somewhat relieved that he had finished giving evidence. In his opinion, he would no longer be required by the Court for any reason whatsoever. It was the turn of the crew of the Dei Gratia next, and John Wright waited to be called to the stand, while Lund, Anderson and Johnson sat quietly with him. Wright was duly called and sworn-in to be examined by Henry Pisani.
At this point, Sir James Cochrane and Solly Flood were clearly disappointed with the evidence. The only two people who might be able to throw light on the case were Oliver Deveau and Captain Morehouse - the rest would merely provide corroboration. Deveau had not proved to be devious at all, but the relevance of his testimony.....although it provided a view of the situation existing on the Mary Celeste.....did little to reveal any information which might help to solve the mystery. The fact that Deveau was the first man aboard the ‘Celeste’ and actually handled the vessel, while Captain Morehouse was only a spectator, led the legal advocates to realise that their prime witness had done nothing to assist them to discover the truth.
They watched Pisani continue the task with the lesser crew of the Dei Gratia as John Wright came under s
crutiny. He confirmed that the derelict was sighted at one o’clock on the agreed day.....sea time.....as he was on watch on the deck from twelve noon. The Second Mate explained that he had been selected to go with Deveau to the other ship by Morehouse, and that during the time aboard he had tested the pump-well and entered the cabin. After responding to questions on the rigging, hull and spars, the questions turned to Johnson who assured the Court that he never returned to the derelict after going back to the Dei Gratia. Pisani took great interest in the consultative discussions between the members of the crew as to whether they should take in the Mary Celeste for the salvage award. Once again the predicament of Captain Morehouse emerged. The reduction of crews for both vessels was considered a high risk. Wright, in particular, told the Court that it took the crew no more than a few moments to make up their minds. He discounted the fact that no invitation was extended to him to return to the other ship on the grounds that all crew members would share in the salvage money. Pisani’s questions followed a very simple line:
Pisani: In your opinion, was Captain Morehouse correct to have cause for concern in the risk to both his crew and his ship?
Wright: Yes, especially if the weather got rough. There was a heavy sea running when we launched our boat to go to the Celeste. We had had heavy weather before that but was then moderating.
Pisani: You were bound for Gibraltar?
Wright: Yes.
Pisani: And the Mary Celeste was with you all the time?
Wright: We sailed keeping sight of her until three o’clock on the night of the storm. Then we lost sight of her.
Pisani: You arrived at Gibraltar on Tuesday morning. When did you lose sight of the Mary Celeste?
Wright: I can’t remember days. I lost sight of her three days previously. I wasn’t sure whether we got here on Tuesday or Thursday.
Pisani: So you were separated for three days but the Mary Celeste arrived here the day after you docked.
Pisani continued aimlessly for a while and then took his seat to allow the Queen’s Proctor to cross-examine the witness.
