by Stan Mason
The Ships log wh. was found on board shows the last day’s work of the Ship up to noon on the 24th Novbr. when the weather was sufficiently fine to enable and observation to be taken. The position then was by observation Lat. 36.56 N. Longitude 27.20 W. Entries on the Slate log are carried up to 8 a.m. on the 25th wh. is the last and at wh. time she had passed from W. to E. to the north of the Island off St. Mary’s, the eastern point of which bore S.S.W. 6 miles distance. The distance of the longitude of the place where she was found from that of the Island of St. Mary is 10 N.E. and the corrected distance of the lat. of the place when she was found from that last mentioned on the log is 1.18 N. so that she must actually have held her due course for 10 days after the 25th Novbr. the wheel being loose all the time.
My object is to move the Bd. of Trade to take such action as they may think fit to discover if possible the fate of the Master his wife and Child, and the crew of the derelict. My own theory or guess is that the Crew got at the alcohol and in the fury of drunkenness murdered the Master whose name was Briggs and wife and Child and the Chief Mate - that they then damaged the bows of the Vessel with the view of giving it the appearance of having struck on rocks or suffered from a collision so as to induce the Master of any Vessel wh. might pick them up if they saw her at some distance to think her not worth attempting to save and that they did sometime between the 25th Novbr. and the 5th Decbr. escape on board some vessel bound for some north or South American port or the West Indies. I shall however be thankful for any information and have etc.
Fredk. Solly Flood
H.M.S. Advocate Genl. and Proctor for the Queen in Her Office of Admiralty & Attorney Genl. for Gibraltar. To the Board of Trade, Marine Depm’t. London
Unfortunately, he was so agitated, he could not allow time to settle or events to rest. On the day following his letter to the Board of Trade, he supplemented it by a further communication.
Gibraltar, 23 January 1873
Sir,
I beg leave to supplement my letter of the 22nd Inst by enclosing an extract from so much of the log of the Dei Gratia as is necessary to show the position of that Vessel on & from the 24th of November to the day when she met the Mary Celeste on the 5th of December from which it will appear that the wind during the whole of that time was more or less from the North, that she was during the whole of the time on the Port tack, & that consequently it seems incredible that the Mary Celeste should have run during the same period a distance of 7’.54 E at least upon the starboard tack, upon which tack she was when met by the Dei Gratia. These circumstances seem to me to lead to the conclusion that - although no entry either in the Log or on the slate of the Mary Celeste later than 8 a.m. on the 25th November is to be found, she had in fact not been abandoned till several days afterwards, and probably also that she was abandoned much further to the Eastward than the spot where she was found.
I have &
Fredk. Solly Flood, H.M.S. Advocate Genl. and Proctor for the Queen in Her Office of Admiralty & Attorney General for Gibraltar. To the Secretary, Board of Trade
Prior to the despatch of these two letters, Captain James H. Winchester, who owned fifty per cent of the Mary Celeste, arrived at Gibraltar on the fifteenth of January,1873. As he was an American citizen, Consul Sprague, who had been reticent so far, without informing the American Department of State on many matters concerning the Mary Celeste, felt obliged to write to them about the owner of the fated vessel. Horatio Jones Sprague, the Consul, had succeeded his father in the American Consulship at Gibraltar. He had been appointed by President Polk in May, 1848, and he was held in high esteem by the authorities at Gibraltar as well as in Washington.
January 20th 1873 Gibraltar
Gentlemen,
I have now to inform you that the Mary Celeste’s principal owner, Mr. James H. Winchester, arrived here on the 15th instant from New York for the purpose of claiming the Brig and attending to the interests of all those concerned in her case, including the New York underwriters who have also empowered him to that effect. Mr. Winchester is now about entering his claim in the Vice-Admiralty Court, with the assistance of a Proctor, Cornwell, as required by British law in such cases. A claim for the cargo has already been entered by the holders of the Bill of lading through their Proctor, Mr. M.W. Stokes, in the meanwhile, nothing is heard from the missing crew of the Mary Celeste, and in fact of the apparently seaworthy condition of this vessel, it is difficult to account for her abandonment, particularly as her Master, who was well-known, bore the highest character for seamanship and correctness; besides, he had his wife and young child with him and was part owner of the Mary Celeste. The Queen’s Proctor in the Vice-Admiralty Court of this City, who is also the Attorney-General, seems to take the greatest interest in the case and rather entertains the apprehension of some foul play having occurred. Quite a quantity of clothes belonging to the Master, his family and crew has been found on board but the Chronometer of the Brig, her papers and boat are missing: in fact, so far, the matter is wrapped up in mystery.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient ser’t
Horatio J. Sprague
U.S. Consul
Still convinced that foul play had taken place and needed to be exposed, Solly Flood made a last-ditch stand to provide himself with adequate evidence before the Court met on this case at the end of the month. He employed the services of a Dr. J. Patron to make a careful and minute inspection of the vessel. This examination included the deck of the vessel, the topgallant rail, the cabin floor, the sides of the berths, the mattresses, and a certain piece of the vessel’s timber which had been kept in the Attorney-General’s chambers. The examination also included the sword found by the Marshal on the cabin floor, which bore stains believed to be blood. According to the report, Dr. Patron acknowledged having received from the Marshal, T.J. Vecchio, five papers, numbered consecutively one to five, containing powder-like scrapings from various parts of the vessel and also from the sword with its sheath. He wrote the report on the thirtieth of January, 1873, but it was never published. Indeed, its contents remained unknown and was not allowed to be opened even for the purpose of furnishing a copy to the Governor of the Fortress. The secrecy was maintained by Solly Flood himself and remained under seal in the possession of Edward Baumgartner, the Registrar for fourteen years. Thereafter, on the twenty-fifth of July, 1887, at the instigation of the U.S. Department of State, it was opened in the presence of Solly Flood and Consul Sprague. It ran as follows:
Gibraltar, 30th January 1873
At the request of Her Majesty’s Attorney-General I proceeded on board the American brig Mary Celeste anchored in this Bay for the purpose of ascertaining where any marks or stains of blood could be discovered on or in her hulk. After a careful and minute inspection of the deck of the said vessel some red brown spots about a milli-metre thick and half an inch in diameter with a dull aspect were found on deck in the forepart of the vessel, these spots were separated with a chisel and carefully wrapped in paper No. 1. Some other similar spots were equally gathered in different parts of the deck and wrapped in papers numbered 2, 3 and 4. Paper No. 5 contained a powder grated from a suspicious mark seen on the topgallant rail part of which was obtained on board and part from a piece of timber belonging to the said vessel in Her Majesty’s Attorney-General’s chambers. I carefully examined the cabin both with natural and artificial light; the floor, the sides of the berths, mattresses, etc. were searched and nothing worth calling attention was seen that could have any relation with the object of my enquiries.
On the 31 January at 2 o’clock I received from the hands of Mr. Vecchio, Marshal of the Supreme Court the five papers above mentioned and numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and a sword with its sheath found on board the said vessel. The spots which were in papers No. 1, 2 and 3, were cut in small pieces of about a quarter of an inch long and broad passed through a white thread and suspended half an inch from the botto
m of tubes containing a small quantity of distilled water. The contents of paper No. 4 were put in a small filtering bag as their minuteness would not allow any other process of maceration and the same was done with the contents of paper No. 5. The maceration went on in the five tubes for two hours and a quarter; the distilled water remaining after this period as clear and bright as in the very beginning of the experiment. Nothwithstanding, I left the things as they were till the next day and 23 hours maceration did not produce any alteration in the transparency of the liquid, the water being then heated with the spirit-lamp as no precipitate or cloudy aspect appeared, I consider the experiment over and of negative character.
The sword presented on its blade about the middle and final part some stains of a more suspicious character; although few very small and superficial, their aspect was reddish and in some parts brilliant like albuminous coloured substance. My first impression was that they were really blood stains; examined with an eight or ten diameter magnifying glass these stains presented an irregular and granulated surface; the granules becoming smaller in proportion of their distance from the central and thickest part. After an hour and three quarters maceration the transparency of the liquid remained unchanged; heat produced no cloudy alteration in it and the result was as negative as in those stains found on the deck. The largest of these reddish spots was carefully grated from the blade and put under a microscope of Doctor Hartnack, objective No. 7 and ocular No. 3 corresponding to a magnifying power of 330 diameter. A yellow and imperfectly crystallised substance resembling Citrate of Iron presenting here and there some red granules was seen with some fragments of vegetable ramified fibres; but no blood globules could be detected. Three other stains were tested with Hydrochloric Acid and after a perceptible effervescence a yellow stain was produced of Chloride of Iron; the insufficiency of the liquid could not permit of any other experi iment. The blade heated under flame of the spirit-lamp recovered the natural brilliancy after the removal by heat of the superficial crust. The sheath of the sword was clean inside and with no mark of any kind.
From the preceding negative experiments I feel myself authorized to conclude that according to our present scientifical knowledge there is no blood either in the stains observed on the deck of the Mary Celeste or on those found on the blade of the sword that I have examined.
(Sig’d) J. Patron M.D.
Edward J. Baumgartner
Registrar Vice Adm: Court
Gibraltar, 28 July 1887
The Queen’s Proctor never divulged openly his reason for suppressing the report, but it is clear he entertained deep disappointment that Dr. Patron’s analysis failed to support his theory of mutiny and murder. Once the document was produced, however, few people would have taken his intuitions too seriously, so it was held under lock and key until, what was considered, a respectable period of time had elapsed.
On Friday, the thirty-first of January, 1873, the Vice-Admiralty Court was reconvened on the matter of ‘The Mary Celeste and Cargo, derelict’. The same Counsel arrived; this being the day assigned to Cornwell to bring in the proofs of his parties claiming to be the owners of the ship or vessel supposed to be the Mary Celeste.
Cornwell prayed to the Judge to “admit the claim of his party James H. Winchester as the lawful owner of the said Brig Mary Celeste and to decree restitution thereof to him upon payment of salvage and salvage expenses and upon finding sureties to answer all latent claims”. The Queen’s Proctor was present having consented to the Hearing, and Pisani, Proctor for the Salvors, was also present. Sir James, however, was very aggrieved about the action taken by Captain Morehouse and Oliver Deveau and he intended to make them pay heavily for it. He warned:
“There are certain matters which have been brought to my notice respecting this vessel, my opinion about which I have already very decidedly expressed and which make it desirable and even very necessary that further investigation should take place before the release of the vessel can be sanctioned or before she can quit this port. The conduct of the Salvors in going away as they have done has in my opinion been most reprehensible and may probably influence the decision as to their claim for remuneration for their services. It appears very strange why the Captain of the Dei Gratia who knows little or nothing to help the investigation should have remained here whilst the first Mate and the crew who boarded the Celeste and brought her here should have been allowed to go away as they have done.”
Clearly, this particular claim was going to come under the closest scrutiny with no quarter to any of the parties. Solly Flood took the opportunity to introduce the evidence of John Austin, the Surveyor of Shipping in Gibraltar.
“You will recall that this Honourable Court authorised a survey of the vessel known as the Mary Celeste, and I respectfully request the admission of our findings as evidence.”
He called the surveyor to the stand, arranging for him to take the oath, and to give his name and profession.
Flood: Who requested your assistance in the matter of examination of the vessel known as the Mary Celeste?
Austin: Thomas Vecchio, Marshal of this Honourable Court.
Flood: Did he accompany you on board the vessel?
Austin: He did.
Flood: Was anyone else with you?
Austin: Yes. You were.
Flood: When did you conduct your survey?
Austin: On Monday the 23rd December.
Flood: Would you kindly advise us of your findings?
Austin: May I refer to my notes?
Flood: Of course.
Austin produced a wad of paper and glanced down at it regularly to remind himself accurately of the details.
“The three of us went aboard a vessel rigged as a brigantine, name unknown, supposed to be the Mary Celeste and then moored in the port of Gibraltar and under an arrest in pursuance of a warrant issued by the Court as having been found derelict on the high seas. I then carefully and minutely surveyed and examined the state and condition of the said vessel and was occupied therein for a period of five hours. On approaching the Vessel I found on the bow between two and three feet above the water line on the port side a long narrow strip of the edge of one of her outer planks under the cathead cut away to the depth of about three eighths of an inch or about one inch and a quarter wide for a length of about 6 or 7 feet. This injury had been sustained very recently and could not have been effected by the weather and was apparently done by a sharp cutting instrument continuously applied through the whole length of the injury. I found on the starboard bow, but a little further from the stem of the Vessel, a precisely similar injury but perhaps an eighth or a tenth of an inch wider which in my opinion had been effected at the same time and by the same means and not otherwise. The whole of the Hull, Masts, Yards, and other Spars were in their proper places and in good condition and exhibited no appearances whatever that the vessel since she had undergone her last repairs or during her last voyage had encountered any seriously heavy weather. Some of her rigging was old but some of her ropes appeared to have been new at the commencement of her last voyage. The peak halyards and throat halyards appeared to be the same with wh. she had been rigged during her last and more than once previous voyage. None of them had been recently spliced and they were all in good working condition. If the peak halyards had been carried away during her last voyage they must have been subsequently spliced wh. was not the case. If the peak halyards had been carried away while the vessel was under sail and the vessel had been abandoned hurried and without letting go the throat halyards the gaff would have been carried backwards and forwards by the wind. The jaws of the gaff would thereby have been destroyed and the mainmast would have been cut into but the jaws of the gaff exhibited no signs of recent injury and the mainmast was undamaged - in such a case also the gaff would have ripped the mainsail to pieces. Moreover the main boom would have swayed backward and forward and in the event of there being any
strong wind either the sheets would have been carried away or the bolts would have been torn out of their deck but they were all uninjured. Upon examining the deck I found the butts and water ways in good condition. The pitch in the waterways had nowhere started which it must have done extensively if the vessel had encountered seriously bad weather. The vessel had no bulwarks but was provided with a topgallant rail supported by wooden stanchions, the whole of which were uninjured; nor was there a single stanchion displaced. The water barrels on deck were in their proper places and secured in the ordinary manner but such that if the vessel had ever been thrown on her beam ends or encountered a very serious gale they would have gone adrift and carried away some of the stanchions of the topgallant rail.
