Californian's cargo

[Richard A. Krebes]

What kind of cargo was the Californian carrying? I read something about it being "general cargo", but what made up that "general" cargo?
Thanks, as always, in advance for anyone who can be of help.

Richard K.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

I don't think I've ever seen anything specific on that. General cargo would likely be a catch all statement for a wide variety of things they could be contracted to carry such as textiles, machine parts, lumber, wine, books, furniture...whatever.

It may be too much to hope for but perhaps somebody may have a copy of the manifest. (Bill or Eric Sauder perhaps?)

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[David G. Brown]

I have seen in a couple of places that Californian was in ballast and was not carrying cargo that night. However, I've never see proof of that.

-- David G. Brown

 

[Senan Molony]

I have seen a list of her cargo, and believe I have it somewhere, along with her sign-on lists. Workhorses of the Leyland Line were not in the habit of crossing the Atlantic empty.

 

[David G. Brown]

Senan--
The purpose of my post was an attempt to draw out exactly what you posted. I have doubted the sources that say Californian was empty, but have seen no proof one way or the other. What, if anything, was in the ship's hold probably makes little differenc, but it is a curiosity. Hope you can find the manifest.

--David G. Brown

 

[Dave Gittins]

Gill said that he could not smoke below decks because of the cargo. So she certainly was not empty.

Legend has it that ships used to report, "Have just sighted four masts and a funnel. Presumed Leyland liner." They had a name for loading to the Plimsoll Line.

 

[Senan Molony]

Railway sleepers seem to stick in the mind from the bill of lading. Could be wrong.

 

[Norman Olsen]

I've seen where the Californian had no passengers that trip, but no mention of cargo. But I'm certain the ship wouldn't even be steaming without cargo and/or passengers. Shipping companies go out of business just steaming with no reason. Norm

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Hi Norman, while it doesn't go into specifics, I would have to presume (A dangerous passtime, I know.) that at least some of the cargo was volitile enough that the only place the crew could smoke was on the weather decks. If you check out Earnest Gill's testimony on day 8 of the U.S. Senate Inquiry, you'll see in his appended affidavit the following quote;

"I turned in, but could not sleep. In half an hour I turned out, thinking to smoke a cigarette. Because of the cargo, I could not smoke 'tween decks, so I went on deck again."

It's not unknown for merchent vessels to travel without cargo, but for the reasons you just mentioned, shipping lines don't make a habit of it. They'ed go broke if they did.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Michael H. Standart]

While reading Violet Jessops memoirs, in the notes, John Maxtone-Graham mentioned that the Californian was carrying a cargo of lumber. I was wondering if anyone can confirm this.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Steve Santini]

Hi,
Just my two cents;... but it seems quite logical that if the vessel were carting a load of lumber (which is indeed combustible), crew members, such as Gill, may have indeed have been prohibited from smoking between decks. Regards, Steve Santini.

 

[David G. Brown]

Lumber to North America? What kind? Timber has always gone the other way--to Europe. Not to say that "carrying coals to Newcastle" hasn't been done, just that it's not usually the case.

Smoking restrictions usually imply a more dangerous cargo that gives of either flammable or explosive fumes...like alcohol (spirits or industrial), gasoline, etc.

Of course, the cargo could have been rare unobtainium which is extremely light for its strength, but can be dulled by exposure to niccotine in high quantities.

We're all guessing and that does little (if any) good. Does anyone have access to the ship's clearance papers. They would solve the problem in a heartbeat.

-- David G. Brown

 

[John M. Feeney]

Mike: All I've seen previously on this (in Reade) was a "mixed cargo". Not much help, admittedly.

But here's another thought. Need this restriction be *specifically* related to the Boston voyage's cargo? Or could it simply be a standing, general order -- Captain's rules? Leyland Line policy?

Prior to that first Boston run, Californian's U.S. port of call was New Orleans, and its freight -- out of the U.S., at least -- typically cotton. Not exactly the type of shipment you'd want to start a'smoldering, so perhaps precedent had as much to do with this as anything else. Also, unless I miss my guess, any "mixed goods" of a fragile nature would at that time likely be packed in excelsior -- ultra-fine wood shavings that are *highly* flammable. (This stuff was also used to insulate houses -- prior to the advent of fiberglass -- until it was banned due to the inherent fire hazard.)

I still think it's worthwhile digging for what the cargo actually was. But if the smoking restriction was a *generalized* one, would the official log reflect this?

Cheers,
John

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>But here's another thought. Need this restriction be *specifically* related to the Boston voyage's cargo? Or could it simply be a standing, general order -- Captain's rules? Leyland Line policy?<<

This is very possible John. Flammable cargo and packing is quite a fire hazard and we sailors hate fires. You either get barbequed or end up playing tag with the sharks if one gets going and you can't put it out. Unfortunately, Gill's affidavit isn't all that illuminating in this regard. The impression I had when I read it was that this was a touch out of the ordinary. maybe I'm reading too much into it.

Somehow, I doubt lumber alone would have been that much of a concern, but add in things like what you described and maybe barrels of alcohol, and and you potentially have quite a problem on your hands.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Maureen Zottoli]

Here's a thought. What if Californian was carrying some sort of cargo that was highly flammable or perhaps explosive, that was also of some sort of secret shipment? What if it had been known that Californian was carrying nitroglycerin through ice ladened waters? How would that change things? Would we want the gas truck to go to the rescue of people caught in a fire? Would we want a ship filled with nitro to race to the rescue of a sinking ship only a few miles away that may hit an iceberg and knock them both out of the water. Hey, just a thought here.

But even worse, they may have had a whole ship load of Irish Whiskey or Scotch ( a case of Guiness) on board! They all would have gone up!
Maureen.