American Commercial Code of Signal codes 1859 to 1864

(Revised 12 May 2006)

The Commercial Code of Signals for All Nations derives from a British initiative in 1855, which like the British system of tonnage measurement introduced at the same time was adopted internationally some 15 years later. It first appears in the Mercantile Navy List for 1857 but for British vessels only.

Signal codes for American ships were included as appendices in the Mercantile Navy List for 1860, 1862, 1863 and 1864, and presumably also for 1861. It was definitely not included in the MNL before 1860, in the1865-67 volumes or volumes after 1873. It is most unlikely that it was included in the 1868 to 1872 volumes.

Whether there is an American publication of them or records in US National Archives I do not know. They postdate and are different from Roger’s code of signals of 1855. I have been unable to check how or if an internet “Appletons Encyclopedia” reference to “Roger’s Commercial Code of Signals for all Nations” published by Henry J. Rodgers with Walter P. Larkins in 1859 may be related.

A notice precedes the relevant section of the MNL inviting owners and masters desirous of having a signal allocated to contact the [British] Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen, the publisher of the MNL, which clearly implies individual application. However, the American listings in the MNL show every sign of a centralised guiding hand. The organisation of the ship’s names in alphabetical blocks anticipates the structure of allocation of US official numbers from 1867 to 1903. A note at the head of the 1864 MNL listing refers to the list being the same as in the 1863 edition “owing to circumstances having prevented the arrival, from New York, of the corrected list in time for Press” which clearly indicates that the list was compiled in the United States.

It is likely that the 1860-64 lists include many of the ocean-going ships under US registration during the 1850’s and some even earlier still as most ships would have had working careers of at least ten years, heavy though the toll of the sea undoubtedly was.

Internal evidence suggests that the 1860 list was added to in annual batches to bring it up to almost 10,000 names altogether in 1863 and 1864. This is equivalent to at least a third of the number of US ships recorded in foreign, coasting and whaling trades in 1868. Judging from a preliminary sample-based estimated average of 212 tons they could represent around half the total tonnage. It is likely that even more of the foreign going tonnage is covered. Some ships as small as 60 tons are included.

Presumably there are original primary records of the information in this list in some US repository and the same list/s may well be published in US document/s to which I do not have access. However, the lists in the MNL are likely to be the most accessible to most British, Australasian and non-American researchers. They may even be the most accessible to many American researchers - or at least the only ones you can photocopy and take home.

The list is numbered sequentially, the numbers bearing a logical relationship to the 4-letter flag codes. Ships were originally listed in alphabetical order with gaps left at the end of each letter for the addition of new ships. Some gaps appear in the later sequences of names, where the ship allocated that number and flag code has been lost or sold to foreign owners. You can generally go back to the 1860 list and see what it was.

The information provided about each ship is basic, although unlike the listing of British ships in the MNL, it does include rig.

Columns in the tabulation are:

Sequential number, specific to the list

Four-letter signal code (to be used in conjunction with the national flag)

Name of vessel and Port belonging to (in one column)

Tons (single figure)

Rig (specified simply as Brig, Bark, Schooner, Ship or Steamer)

Clearly, this is not a list one goes to for a detailed description of a ship. Year and place built are important omissions but not necessarily fatal to its utility in the absence of anything more comprehensive. The omission of Sloop as a rig is significant as it would be essential if smaller ships were included. It is likely that barkentines are grouped with barks and brigantines with brigs on the basis of subsequent statistical practice.

Names are in alphabetical order in the 1860 list with gaps for additional names to be added at the end of each letter. The later lists have batches of additions to each letter in alphabetical order.

The lists are clearly not comprehensive in the way that the List of Merchant Vessels of the United States is from 1868 onward. However, they appear to be the most comprehensive nationwide listing of U.S. merchant vessels available between the Rogers listing of 1855 (refer Rogers) and they may well include most if not all ships engaged in foreign trade (beyond Canada anyway). They could possibly have utility as a source of surrogate identifiers for US ships never issued an official number. Either the sequential number or the flag signal itself could be used. There is case for using both, as the two together provide a check on typographical errors because both are sequential from a common starting point. This could work well for a database consisting only of these vessels but may be unhelpful in the context of a dataset of which they form only part.

The flag codes are not the same as those in the first issue of the List of Merchant Vessels of the United States (1868) as the flag codes were re-issued in the meantime (?1865). They therefore cannot be used as a means to directly link pre and post 1867 ship records – a very great pity indeed as that could easily save 1,000 hours work, guarantee accuracy and pinpoint omissions. It is possible that authorities compiled a list showing the old and new codes for each ship side by side which may have survived in Federal archives. The utility of such a translation file would justify a considerable search effort by anyone in a position to do so – presumably someone with regular access to National Archives in Washington DC with a good knowledge of its records administration would be best placed to find such. If you find it please let me know and I’ll feature it here as a public service. If you can organise me a photocopy and any necessary permissions I’ll see it becomes a dataset of considerable utility.

At very least, the list provides a reference point against which the coverage of local or less comprehensive lists may be assessed. Separately or in conjunction with the earlier Rogers list it could provide the potential core of a database to which further information about the ships on it and other ships not on it at all can be added both as a starting point and as a cross-check on multiple sources. The Rogers 1846-1856 listing could be used in a similar manner (refer Rogers). The logical strategy would be to add further details of when and where built to the original LMVUS entries (which lack them), pick up those dating back to the 1859 to 1863 period in these listings, then to add details for the remaining vessels (of 1859-1863 that did not survive to 1867/68) and then to repeat the process back to the 1846-1854 Rogers listing.

It is a reasonable assumption that the list is more comprehensive than the insurance classification registers of the period. In any case it can be used to test their coverage. It could not be as comprehensive as the Lytle-Holdcamper list of steamships to 1867. Similarly it could not be as comprehensive as the Holdcamper list of New York sailing ships or other more or less comprehensive regional or local listings, but by definition, it is nationwide. Further information on the Holdcamper and Lytle-Holdcamper lists (refer C21AmericanSources ).

To return to main Maritime menu click here or use back arrow