Main Cause of the Accident

From: Operations, 12^th Naval District

To: Commander Destroyer Squadron 11

Steam schooner Raymond passed Point Arguello 2200 (less than an hour after the stranding) September 8 bound north. Experienced a strong south and inshore current from Arguello to Piedras Blanca. Coast and Geodetic Survey reports slight variation in tide. No other reports received to date.[iv]

News wire stories out of Los Angeles reported an unusual current around the channel islands based upon a report from the Captain of the Cuba, which wrecked on San Miguel Island in the early hours of September 8, 1923.

The Captain of the wrecked liner Cuba claimed that a mysterious change in the normal ocean current pushed him southward and east of his estimated position coming up en route to San Francisco.[v]

On September 4, 1923, four days before the disaster at Point Honda, the New York Times published an article from Los Angeles which described twenty foot waves along the California coast.

  Huge Swells Are Thought to Be Due to Earthquake in Japan

LOS ANGELES, Sept. 4.—Ground swells twenty feet high, larger than any in the experience of mariners at Los Angeles Harbor, struck the Southern California coast early today and were believed to have been the result of the earthquake and tidal wave which devastated parts of Japan.

The swells broke completely over the fifteen foot breakwater and carried away all loose objects, including a boat tender at the lighthouse and considerable lumber piled along the shore.

Naval observers said no storm of any size had been reported anywhere on the Pacific, and they thought the huge swells due to reaction on this coast from the Tokio (sic) catastrophe.

At Santa Barbara, Cal., the highest seas in years have washed the shores for the last thirty-six hours. Since yesterday afternoon six and eight foot waves have driven bathers back on the beach and at one time the tide came to the sea wall at the foot of the beach boulevard for the first time in several years.[vi]

On September 11, 1923, the Associated Press published a news release from Washington, DC, based upon attitudes and opinions of the Navy Department. Two paragraphs from this article pertain to the possible cause of the wayward current.

Unofficial description of the scene of the wreck and known peculiarities of the coastal area in which it occurred, led to  the belief of some officials that a tidal disturbance of unusual force threw the destroyers far off their course, probably without the knowledge of the officers on board.

A possible connection between such a phenomenon and the recent Japanese earthquake was discussed. Records of the hydrographic office (in San Francisco) and reports of naval officers who have served extensively on the California coast agreed that the Santa Barbara section frequently experiences a coastward tide, attributable to no unknown marine factor.[vii]

On September 13, 1923, five days after the disaster at Point Honda, the New York Times published an article from San Francisco which described changes in the Pacific noted in California.

  Shifting Currents and Tidal Waves May
Necessitate Recharting the Coast 

SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 13.—Within the past week ten American warships, a passenger liner and a freighter have come to grief off the coast of California as a result of oceanic changes on the heels of the Japanese disaster. Tidal waves that have smashed piers and breakwaters culminated on Wednesday in the wiping out of a Lower California fishing village by a huge wave.

The precise nature of the changes off the California coast are still unknown to those whose business is to record, chart and report such disturbances, but there have been at least two positive indications of a change in the nature of the Pacific in this locality.

First, there has been noted a definite and strong inshore set of the ocean current at that point.

Second, there have been unusual and dangerous waves, at time reaching points ten and twelve feet in excess of the highest normal waves.

The area of disturbance appears from the present reports of Point Arguello to beyond the American-Mexican border line.

Whether the oceanic changes on this side are the direct result of the upheaval in Japan, or whether they are due to a secondary disturbance in the bed of the ocean a comparatively few miles off the California coast, is yet unknown. Whether the bed of the ocean here has changed is also a matter of conjecture, and will be until new soundings can be made throughout the area of disturbance.

The Hydrographic Office, since the wreck of the seven destroyers at La Honda (Point Honda), has been receiving reports from masters of vessels, all of whom state that a strong inshore set of the ocean current has been noted in the vicinity of Point Conception and Point Arguello.

In the meantime mariners are taking unusual precautions when traversing coast routes south of the city.[viii]

While doing research on their book in the late 1950s, the authors of Tragedy at Honda encountered inconsistencies concerning the cause of a wholly unexpected current with a pronounced southeasterly inshore set.

In hunting around for the cause of such a phenomenon (inshore set), some mariners and oceanographers called attention to the great earthquake staged by Mother Nature in Japan just six days earlier. Almost 40,000 died, about 100,000 were badly injured, and more than 500,000 were made homeless by this terrible disaster. The enormous waves of energy released by the quake could easily, it was explained, have been transmitted across the ocean bottom and set up patterns of wayward oceanic currents. Some scientists held that this was quite possible. Others declared that it was utterly impossible.[ix]

On November 7, 1923, Lieutenant Commander Hunter, skipper of the Delphy and self-proclaimed navigator on September 8, 1923, testified at his trial by general court martial concerning the navigational situation.

16. Q. If you have any other statement to make to the court relative to navigational work of the Delphy, please make it now.?  

A. I believe that the contributory factors to the loss of the Delphy were unusual and abnormal currents which could not be anticipated with the weather conditions as they were, and to the fact that a very thick fog extended not more than 500 yards from the coast line, when the visibility at the time of the change of course was a good two miles, which prevented us from seeing the danger and taking steps to avoid it.[x]

Lieutenant Commander Hunter taught navigation for two years at the Naval Academy prior to assuming command of the Delphy. On September 8, 1923, he navigated the Delphy by dead reckoning because he did not trust the radio compass signals sent to the Delphy from the station at Point Arguello. Several of the radio signals indicated that the Delphy was heading directly toward the station, although, the dead reckoning position showed the Delphy in safe waters.

When questioned about his judgment concerning these bearings at his general court martial, Lieutenant Commander Hunter testified that he could not conceive that the ship had been set in eight miles in less than two hours.[xi]

All of the sources used in the research concerning “unusual currents” appear to verify that they existed along the California coast on September 8, 1923, and may have contributed to the disaster at Point Honda. Neither the Court of Inquiry nor the General Court Martials which followed were able to establish a cause and effect relationship to explain the inshore current sets—nor did they try.

So here is the rest of the story—documented in The Tragedy at Honda.

The findings of the Court of Inquiry (recommended General Court Martials be awarded to eleven officers) were greeted with general satisfaction by press, public and—not least—by Congressional politicians. The approval uttered by Secretary of the Navy Edwin Denby was reflected widely by the economy-minded Coolidge administration. It was apparent that to certain factions in Washington, the real tragedy at Honda—the loss of seven splendid fighting ships and 23 irreplaceable lives—was of secondary importance. To them the matter of grave concern was that $13,000,000 worth of Government property had been tossed on the junk heap. For that, heads must roll on the sand.[xii]

But when the General Court Martials returned only two convictions out of eleven, the mood changed considerably.

While the findings (two convictions and nine acquittals) dissipated the gloom that hung over the Navy, they created deep displeasure in Washington. The wholesale “hangings” that had been expected did not materialize to provide material for political campaigners. There was much talk about drastic Congressional changes in laws that deal with naval courts, to place greater legal power in the hands of the Secretary of the Navy.

Even (President) Calvin Coolidge—who seldom ventured an opinion on any subject, including the weather—observed that the “Court Martial has been very lenient with everybody.”

As is understandable, Secretary of the Navy Denby was much displeased with the nine acquittals. He believed that stern treatment should have been accorded all 11 of the defendants. He felt that the standards of naval discipline had been let down and that the prestige, performance, and morale of the service would suffer.[xiii]

It was the Navy Department’s next move. Commander Leslie E. Bratton was ordered to Washington and appointed the Assistant Judge Advocate to review the records of trial for the Secretary’s endorsement. Commander Bratton was also the Judge Advocate at the Court of Inquiry and the eleven General Court Martials. On September 8, 1923, he was the skipper of the Stoddert—one of the ships of Division 32, Destroyer Squadron Eleven, which escaped the rocks at Point Honda.

After reviewing the records of trial, Commander Bratton recommended that the not guilty verdicts (acquittals) be disapproved. In early 1924, the not guilty verdicts (acquittals) were disapproved by endorsement placed on the court martial records (This author's comment: although, a copy of Lt.(j.g.) Blodgett's endorsement, prepared for signature—By direction on the Secretary of the Navy—was not signed by the JAG of the Navy or his Assistant, Cmdr. Bratton). This action was made public by the Navy Department with the statement noting that disapproval of the findings by the Secretary did not serve as a basis for re-trial of the cases, but was “simply an expression of the Secretary’s views of the Court’s action.”[xiv]

Once again, the bottom line took precedence. Years later, Captain H. O. Roesch, who was the commanding officer of the Nicholas at Point Honda, commented about the outcome of the reversal of his acquittal.

When all the acquittals were disapproved, we were all in the same boat. The principle effect of these reversals was that all the skippers were put in the position of having been responsible for the loss of their ships. This prevented us from submitting claims for the loss of our personal gear and equipment as did our junior officers.[xv]

Concern for unusual current on September 8, 1923 did not exist beyond Lieutenant Hunter’s trial. The Secretary of the Navy Edwin Denby wanted heads to roll, and when he failed, he struck back by reversing the Court’s acquittals.

If the opinion of a Court of Inquiry was that the accident at Point Honda was caused by a huge tidal wave, which deposited the entire column of 14 destroyers on the rocks in one fell swoop, it would have been deemed an act of God by everyone in the chain of command, and no heads would have been called to roll. But since unpredictable, variable, deep, ocean currents caused by the earthquake in Japan, with hundreds of after-shocks days later, caused the loss of seven ships and 23 lives, an act of God does not apply—or should it have?

If you're interested in Point Honda and have some time on your hands, you may want to assist us by doing research in your community. Check your local newspapers and find out if they were publishing in September 1923, and have them archived. If so, search for all articles relating to the earthquake in Japan on September 1, 1923. Also search for any articles that cover the unusual currents on the west coast during the month of September. If you succeed, please send feedback via email.