British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 24
[Counsel Present]
The Commissioner:
I am very anxious, Mr. Attorney, to bring this Enquiry to an end as soon as we can. I was thinking of sitting tomorrow.
The Attorney-General:
Very well, My Lord, I do not mind. If your Lordship thinks so, certainly. The one difficulty which strikes me about the evidence - we have been considering it this morning and that is why I asked your Lordship to give us a few minutes - is that the Captain of the "Carpathia," whom we intended to call, cannot possibly be here until the week after next.
The Commissioner:
So I understand.
The Attorney-General:
I was going to suggest that we should go on, finish the evidence, and begin speeches, deal with the speeches notwithstanding that the Captain of the "Carpathia" has not been called. It would save a lot of time.
The Commissioner:
Yes, certainly.
The Attorney-General:
And then, My Lord, a further point that has occurred to me is, I would like to know, and I am sure your Lordship would like to know, what evidence is to be called, if any, by any of my friends. I have called everybody.
The Commissioner:
I am afraid of asking those questions, for I shall be told to wait and see.
The Attorney-General:
By this time, at any rate, I think your Lordship has waited and perhaps we might now see.
The Commissioner:
I have waited, but I have not seen.
The Attorney-General:
I wanted to know. I am not asking so as to bind anybody, but I think it would be of assistance. I am prepared to call anybody who can throw any light on the Enquiry for any of my friends, but I cannot call anybody merely at the request of either of my friends or any of them without knowing what it is the witnesses are to say, because that would be useless.
The Commissioner:
Now, if you will sit down, I will wait and see if anyone rises.
Mr. Scanlan:
Speaking for myself and my clients, I do not purpose calling any Witness. I did make a suggestion to the learned Attorney-General with reference to one witness whose proof I had sent to me yesterday. I leave it entirely in his discretion whether he calls that witness.
The Commissioner:
I have no doubt, unless he thinks there is some very good reason for not calling him, he will call him.
The Attorney-General:
I intend to call him.
Mr. Scanlan:
That disposes of me.
The Commissioner:
You are my difficulty, Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Edwards:
I am sorry, My Lord, to act purely as a bogey-man to your Lordship.
The Commissioner:
I do not feel in the least resentful.
Mr. Edwards:
I do not know quite what I said that should lead your Lordship to that conclusion.
The Commissioner:
We will not argue that question. I want to know whether you want to call any Witnesses.
Mr. Edwards:
I wish to ask your Lordship's guidance; I am not certain whether from the point of view of the Enquiry somebody ought not to be called from one or other of the registration societies like Lloyd's. If your Lordship thinks not, then I have no desire to call evidence.
The Commissioner:
I think that we can get all the information we want. We shall find it all in the evidence that we have already had and the evidence which is to be added by the few Witnesses still to be called. Will you give me the 26th question and let me draw your attention to it. I want to read it with you, Mr. Edwards. "The Court is invited to report upon the Rules and Regulations made under the merchant Shipping Acts 1894 to 1906 and the administration of those acts and of such Rules and Regulations." Now I stop there for a moment, and then draw your attention to how that is cut down: "So far as the consideration thereof is material to this casualty." Now, if I thought that those words unduly cut down what we ought to do I should not regard them, but I do not think they do. I think they are very important words, and define our task as well as it can be defined; that is to say we are invited to report so far as the consideration of the Rules and Regulations and the acts of Parliament is material to this casualty; "and to make any recommendations or suggestions that it may think fit, having regard to the circumstances of the casualty with a view to promoting the safety of vessels and persons at sea."
Now, it seems to me, we are not intended - and I said some time ago that I should never be in a position to undertake the task - to enter upon an Enquiry and to report upon all questions affecting the stability and safety of ships. We cannot do that. We must limit ourselves to making recommendations, and they will be nothing but recommendation, upon the matters that really are relevant to the Enquiry into this casualty.
Mr. Edwards:
May I say, My Lord, upon that that I am quite sure that your Lordship in coming to your decision, will be faced with what I will call the relation between the sinkability of the ship and the question as to the extent to which there should be boating accommodation. Quite an essential element in what I may call the sinkability of the ship problem, of course, is this question of the number and character and strength of the bulkheads. Of course, it will be possible, if I may say so with respect, for your Lordship to take cognizance of the fact that already an expert Committee has been set up for the consideration of this problem of the bulkheads, and your Lordship may perhaps take the view that there is an insufficiency of evidence for you to come to an absolute and definite determination here on the question and may rather leave it open to that Committee. If that were so, I think that probably it would, if I may say so with respect, be inexpedient to go very extensively outside the evidence already obtained into the question of bulkheads, and, therefore, into the question of calling Witnesses from Lloyd's.
The Commissioner:
That is the view I tried to express some days ago to the Attorney-General, and I requested him to limit the evidence to what I called evidence of a general character and not to attempt to go into detail, because I do not think this is the right tribunal to deal with questions of detail. They will be dealt with, I hope, and I expect, by the Committee that has been already appointed.
Mr. Edwards:
Perhaps it is not quite the right moment, but as it will probably save time, May I suggest that your Lordship should consider with your Assessors a suggestion that the terms of Reference to this Advisory committee which has been set up should be extended so as to consider the relation of boating accommodation with regard to bulkheads and sinkability.
The Commissioner:
I think I have heard them, but I do not remember the terms of Reference to that Committee.
Mr. Edwards:
The terms of Reference are, My Lord, to advise - "(1.) As to what in their opinion would constitute efficient subdivision with regard to each of the classes of vessels included in the Rules for life-saving appliances, Made by the Board of Trade under section 427 of the merchant Shipping Act, 1894, having due regard to the nature of the service in which they are respectively engaged, and, whether, independently of the foregoing, the Committee desire to make any recommendations with reference to the subdivision of vessels already built, or of new vessels, which would, in their opinion, contribute to the safety of life at sea." I very much doubt whether those terms of Reference are wide enough to allow them to consider or to deal with what I will call the relation of boating accommodation to sinkability.
The Commissioner:
There appears to be a good deal in that, Mr. Attorney. I think there is a good deal in what Mr. Edwards says, that it is desirable that the Committee which is to Enquire into the question of bulkheads should, as a question pertinent to that one, enquire also into the provision of life-saving apparatus. You will, perhaps, think about it.
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
I will not ask you to answer the question now.
The Attorney-General:
I quite appreciate what your Lordship means.
The Commissioner:
I suppose the Board of Trade fixed the terms of Reference to that Committee?
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
If the Board of Trade see no objection to it, I should myself like to see the terms amended by including the matter mentioned by Mr. Edwards.
The Attorney-General:
It is sufficient if your Lordship says that unless there is some insuperable objection of which I do not know at the present moment.
The Commissioner:
Then, Mr. Edwards, I understand that neither you nor Mr. Scanlan will call any evidence?
Mr. Edwards:
That is so, My Lord. There is one point I ought to clear up. I inadvertently, I am afraid, rather misled the Court the other day. In the mass of evidence it is a little difficult to tell what has come formally before the Court and what has come before me in another form, and I did say that Barrett in his evidence, as far as I remember, had spoken about a hole being bored in a watertight compartment between sections 5 and 6. That was not given in evidence. I have caused very careful enquiries to be made, and even supposing the statement to be correct, I am given to understand it would not in the least degree interfere with or detract from the strength of that bulkhead as affected by the fire.
The Commissioner:
Very well. Then, in any event, it becomes immaterial.
Mr. Edwards:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
Now, do you desire to call evidence, Mr. Harbinson?
Mr. Harbinson:
No, My Lord. I have considered this question very carefully, and the survivors of the class I represent are in America, and, of course, it would, under the circumstances, be impossible for me to call evidence. I shall confine myself to comment.
The Commissioner:
That is sufficient.
Mr. Laing:
Sir Robert Finlay mentioned to your Lordship some time ago that we had two Captains, simply about the practice of navigation, and one of them is important, because he was navigating at about the time when this accident happened.
The Attorney-General:
Will he be here on Monday?
Mr. Laing:
Oh, yes.
The Commissioner:
I do not see Mr. Dunlop here, who represented the "Californian."
The Attorney-General:
May I say this with reference to that, because that brings us to another point which I was going to raise at the end of the evidence, but I might raise it now, because it is convenient. There are questions, and at the end of the evidence, according to the practice, it would be my duty to submit to your Lordship any further questions which ought to be put in addition to those I placed before the Court at the beginning of the Enquiry. According to my view at present - and I do not think anything is likely to occur which will alter it - the only question which should be added is one relating to what I may call compendiously the "Californian" incident. There is no question in the twenty-six before you which would cover that. It does occur to me and to my friend the Solicitor-General associated with me in it, that it is important that the question should be specifically put and that your Lordship should take it into account, and that it ought not to be passed over merely as a matter throwing some general light upon the Enquiry. It has been already examined into, and my friend Mr. Dunlop has been here representing the "Californian," and, therefore, we ought to put the question and ask your Lordship to answer it.
The Commissioner:
Quite so. I do not suppose I have any jurisdiction to direct that the Captain's certificate should be interfered with?
The Attorney-General:
No, I think that only arises in a collision between two vessels. Then there is jurisdiction.
The Commissioner:
Assume that I take a view adverse to the conduct of the Captain of the "Californian," all I can do is to express an opinion about it?
The Attorney-General:
Yes. What we were going to ask your Lordship to do was to express your view upon the evidence which you have heard, and to give us the benefit of your Lordship's conclusions of fact.
The Commissioner:
Quite.
The Attorney-General:
And then we shall be able to consider it.
The Commissioner:
I think that disposes of that.
The Attorney-General:
May I say one thing more with the object of clearing the ground? I say this with special reference to my friend Mr. Duke and his appearance in this Court, which your Lordship will remember, for Sir Cosmo and Lady Duff-Gordon. The view I take of that incident, as I indicated to your Lordship before I called the witnesses, is that the conduct - I am not making any comment upon it - of Sir Cosmo and Lady Duff-Gordon is quite immaterial in this Enquiry. The only point of calling them was that it threw some light upon a suggestion which might appear to underlie or might underlie one part of Hendrickson's statement about the bribery not to go back; therefore, it became very essential to call them; and the only way in which I propose to comment upon their evidence or deal with it is, not in reference to any personal part, neither to ask for nor to express any opinion whether they were right or wrong in the view they might have taken, but only to use it in reference to the conduct of the man in charge of that boat, Symons, and that only in connection with the boats which we have to deal with both generally and specifically. That particular boat, of course, Must form the subject of a good deal of comment and a good deal of criticism. It is only in reference to that I wish to say anything. I say that now so that my friend Mr. Duke, who appeared for them, May know that, so far at any rate as I am concerned, I intend to make and shall make no further comment or criticism upon Sir Cosmo and Lady Duff-Gordon.
The Commissioner:
Well, I have been thinking about it also, and at present I am of opinion that I am not required, and ought not to express opinions upon the conduct of individuals in the position of passengers.
The Attorney-General:
Quite.
The Commissioner:
Different considerations may arise with reference to Mr. Ismay.
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
I will say nothing about that at present. There is one other matter. I wish to know in what order you intend to address me.
The Attorney-General:
The practice is that I should address you last. I have been thinking about it and considering whether any useful purpose would be served if we departed from that practice. My view is that we should save no time, but, on the contrary, in the end probably it would take more time, there would be a greater expenditure of time if we departed from that course, because, as your Lordship sees, the questions which have been put and which are in writing state quite clearly what the points are to which my friends representing the various interests would have to direct their observations and arguments to your Lordship. I was thinking of this to see what assistance could be given to the Court, and whether there was any useful purpose in departing from the usual practice. If I were to sum up the whole of the evidence the difficulty would be that upon that we should have, no doubt, argument as to the inferences which were to be drawn by my friends in reference to their various clients; and then, of course, I should have to reply to that, and that would mean again going through the evidence. Therefore, that seems to me the proper course to follow, subject to anything your Lordship may say; I am not intending to state any definite view that I take about it, except that, as the result of consideration, that is the conclusion I have arrived at. Then my friends will, in the ordinary course, and I think in the order in which they have been conducting the Enquiry so far as their clients are concerned, address your Lordship, and only, of course, in reference to the particular interest which they do represent; and then Sir Robert Finlay will address your Lordship for the White Star Company - he knows exactly what points are raised by us - and then I should have to sum up the whole case, because I have to deal, of course, with the twenty-six questions. I think that would be the proper course to take.
The Commissioner:
Well, I am not sure that you are not right. It occurred to me that it might be convenient that I should hear you first, and that I should hear the others afterwards, finishing with Sir Robert Finlay, and then that you should reply.
The Attorney-General:
I think your Lordship would find that it would take up much more time than the other way.
The Commissioner:
I would very much rather take your guidance in that matter than my own.
The Attorney-General:
We have considered it carefully, and my impression is it would be more useful that we should follow the usual course, and certainly it would save considerable time.
The Commissioner:
Very well, I daresay that will inflict no hardship upon the other people.
Mr. Laing:
I was just considering that. Sir Robert Finlay will address your Lordship upon the points that appear to him to be relevant, and then the Attorney-General will reply, and if that practice is pursued we shall have no reply.
The Attorney-General:
It is the invariable practice.
The Commissioner:
That is why I suggested it would be convenient if the Attorney-General began first, and finished.
The Attorney-General:
I do not understand why the invariable practice should be departed from.
The Commissioner:
I do not know what it is.
The Attorney-General:
I am telling your Lordship, and you will find it both in the statute and in the Rules and Regulations.
The Commissioner:
Is there any one here who knows the procedure?
The Attorney-General:
It is provided for; there is no question about it. I referred to it in opening, but I will give your Lordship the reference again. It is the invariable practice, and it is also the prescribed practice.
The Commissioner:
Oh well, if it is the prescribed practice that is an end of it.
The Attorney-General:
We have been following rather a convenient course in this case of adopting your Lordship's suggestions; but it is provided for. I will call your Lordship's attention to it a little later.
The Commissioner:
Mr. Laing knows all about this?
Mr. Laing:
Oh yes, I know the usual practice.
The Commissioner:
Is that the usual practice?
Mr. Laing:
Oh yes, as a Rule; when these enquiries are conducted into wrecks and so on, charges are formulated against particular people and the Counsel representing the particular people know what to deal with; but, so far as I understand these twenty-six questions, there are no specific charges made at all.
The Commissioner:
Oh yes - not in the shape of a charge, it is true, but questions are asked which point to my possibly deciding that you have been guilty of negligence in the matter of speed and in the matter of look-out, and, possibly, in the matter of track.
Mr. Laing:
That is quite clear; I have no difficulty about that; but what I have in my mind is that the Attorney-General suggested the other day, in a discussion between him and Sir Robert Finlay, that he was going to make (I think his words were) strong comment on the conduct of Mr. Ismay.
The Attorney-General:
I did not use those words.
Mr. Laing:
I am not quite sure what the words were, but he indicated he was going to put forward some charge against Mr. Ismay, and was going to ask the Court not to accept his evidence. That is how I understood the words which fell from my friend, the Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General:
Not quite that.
Mr. Laing:
Of course, it would be very desirable we should know what is going to be said before Sir Robert has to deal with it.
The Attorney-General:
I remember the passage perfectly well.
The Commissioner:
I remember it, too.
Mr. Laing:
May I read it?
The Attorney-General:
My Lord says he remembers it, and so do I.
The Commissioner:
And if it is any consolation to you, Mr. Laing, I do not think there was very much in the point.
Mr. Laing:
I do not think I shall offer any further opposition to the course suggested to be adopted.
The Attorney-General:
All I wish to guard against is, whatever comment I am going to make I have suggested in the course of the case. What your Lordship will think of it you will determine when you have heard it, but my friend, Mr. Laing, must not take this course; he must not, in consequence of what your Lordship said, say, "Very well, I will take no notice of it," and then, when I come to deal with the case, if your Lordship thinks anything of it, say that he has not had notice of it. That is the point.
The Commissioner:
Oh, no, the notice was clearly given a few days ago by you.
The Attorney-General:
Quite.
The Commissioner:
And, therefore, there is ample notice.
The Attorney-General:
If my friend wishes it, I have no objection, we will put a specific question in regard to Mr. Ismay.
The Commissioner:
No, no.
The Attorney-General:
But it did not seem to be necessary, because what I have to say is covered entirely by the questions.
The Commissioner:
After all, the question of the conduct of Mr. Ismay is only material to the extent to which he was said to have improperly influenced the conduct of the Captain.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, and so far as it affected the navigation of the ship, and what was done on the ship. I will say at once, so that my friend may know, that I am not going to make any comment with regard to Mr. Ismay's conduct in leaving the ship on the boat at that particular moment. I make no observation, and I intend to make no observation with regard to that. I only say this, that I think it is always a very difficult thing to determine in the special circumstances whether or not he took the right course; and I rather suggest also, with respect, that it involves considerations which are not quite those which ought to guide the Court in this Enquiry.
The Commissioner:
I absolutely agree with you.
Mr. Laing:
After what my friend has said I think Sir Robert Finlay will have ample grounds on which he will be able to address your Lordship before my friend, and, therefore, I offer no further opposition.
Mr. Edwards:
With this one consideration, My Lord. It is said by the Attorney-General that there is no reason why there should be any departure from the ordinary practice in relation to these Enquiries; but there is this distinction between this Enquiry and others, which I would suggest to your Lordship, and that is this, that not only is there a question here of the conduct of the owners of the "Titanic," but there is also a question here as to the conduct of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade. Now, the learned Attorney-General is here, of course, in a dual capacity. He represents the Board of Trade, as he represents those who are responsible for formulating the charges. Now, I do suggest if he does not begin the address to your Lordship on the general question, he at least ought to be in the position of addressing your Lordship on behalf of the Board of Trade, so that those of us who stand in a position somewhat adverse to the conduct of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade should have an opportunity of replying to whatever defense is set up.
The Commissioner:
I do not think I should allow that, Mr. Edwards. I regard you and Mr. Scanlan and various others - but you two mainly - as the accusers of the Board of Trade, and I shall expect you to put forward your case against the Board of Trade, and to explain to me what it is you allege against the conduct of the Board of Trade, and the Attorney-General will deal with that, not in the spirit of an advocate for the Board of Trade, but as a man trying to assist me, and nothing else; and I think, Myself, if I may say so, that he has taken that course, so far, quite impartially.
WITNESS.
Alfred Young - Prefessional Member - Board of Trade.
Testimony
The Solicitor-General:
Your Lordship asked yesterday whether we would furnish a chart which showed this new southern track, and, More particularly, the turning point. I am indebted to my friend Sir Robert Finlay's clients for having had it put upon a chart, and I will hand it in, if I may.
The Commissioner:
Does that show the old track?
The Solicitor-General:
Yes, because it is the North Atlantic chart, and it also shows the new one.
The Commissioner:
And does it show the track that the "Titanic" in fact took?
The Solicitor-General:
Subject to this, that she ran on, as we know, for an hour.
The Commissioner:
She did not quite adhere to the track?
The Solicitor-General:
No, it is a matter of a very few miles to the south. I think your Lordship will see what we are handing in shows it. There has been marked on the chart which is now being handed in in a dotted red line the new outward track, and in a dotted blue line the new homeward track; and the new turning point your Lordship will find is at latitude 38, longitude 45.
The Commissioner:
The turning point is almost due south of the old turning point.
The Solicitor-General:
No, My Lord, I think not due south. It involves going 4° of latitude further south and 2° of longitude further east; because the old turning point was 42° 47'. The latitude is 38° whereas it was formerly 42°; that is a difference of 4°, about 240 miles; and as to longitude, instead of the turning point being 47° it is now 45°, that is 2° of longitude more to the East.
The Commissioner:
And how far to the south?
The Solicitor-General:
Measured from one point to the other point that is about 260 miles, I think.
The Commissioner:
To what extent does the change of track lengthen the voyage?
The Solicitor-General:
In miles?
The Commissioner:
Yes.
23588. (The Solicitor-General.) I have no doubt Captain Bartlett will be able to tell us that, My Lord.
Captain Bartlett:
About 220 miles.
23589. (The Solicitor-General.) Perhaps I may just add this; that new track which is marked there in colours, as I understand from Captain Bartlett, is a track for British and German steamers, whether they are going to New York or to Boston or to Philadelphia.
Captain Bartlett:
That is right.
The Commissioner:
I suppose, if this new track had been followed by the "Titanic," she would have been out of the ice track altogether.
The Solicitor-General:
She would certainly have been out of the region to which those wireless messages referred, but what there was further south one has not the same detailed information about. One would assume she would be out of it.
The Commissioner:
I do not see on this chart any intimation that icebergs are found as far south as this turning point.
The Solicitor-General:
Perhaps I may tell your Lordship this - Captain Bartlett gives it to me. If one does not put it graphically, but in words, it will get on the Note. The present track since the disaster, going West, May be thus described: From Fastnet or Bishop's Rock on the great circle to latitude 38 N., longitude 45 W., then to 38 N., 50 W. (that is going due west.), and thence to the port of destination. Then, if one is returning on the easterly course it is proceed to latitude 37° 40' N., longitude 50° W.; then to 37° 40' N., 45° W., and thence by the great circle to Fastnet or Bishop's Rock. I think the Admiral will say that is right.
Sir Robert Finlay:
With reference to the question your Lordship asked just now, I am informed that ice has been reported on the new track. The ice seems to be passing further south for some reason.
The Commissioner:
Since the new track has been adopted.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes.
The Attorney-General:
We had some evidence about it, My Lord.
The Solicitor-General:
Your Lordship will remember I asked Mr. Sanderson to search the reports he had had from his Captains to see whether they had had occasion to diverge from the track they were upon, and he produced one or two since the disaster. That would be in reference to the new track.
The Commissioner:
Where they have had to depart from the new track?
The Attorney-General:
It certainly is after the disaster.
Mr. Laing:
It is on page 477.
The Commissioner:
What questions?
Mr. Laing:
19294 and 19295.
The Attorney-General:
That is right. Then your Lordship will find if you look at page 497 he was recalled and produced reports which they had had from other vessels. If you look at Question 19776. when I am examining him, you will see "what I wanted to know was whether there were any reports of deviation on account of ice being encountered or reported on the track from Queenstown to New York," and I pointed out "the only ones that I see are these two, and they are both after the event, the 24th April, 1912, and the 27th April, 1912." And my friend, Sir Robert Finlay, there points out, "You see the ice has been coming so much further south," because Mr. Sanderson had already given in evidence at page 477 that they were on this more southerly track when they had received these two reports. Those are the two pages that make up the evidence. (After a short pause.) I think we must look into it a little more closely. It is not quite clear that those two reports of the 24th and the 27th April, 1912, were reports of ice on the new more southern track. My friend, Sir Robert Finlay, was under the impression that they were, I see, because he says, "You see the ice has been coming so much further south," but it does not appear clear by the evidence.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I think it is clear if you look at Question 19293. "(The Solicitor-General.) Can you help us about this new arrangement? We have got the old one. Is there a formal agreement and a chart? (A.) No. (Q.) Then in what form is it? (A.) We arrive at it in this way. The only tracks which are fixed are those two which you have marked on the chart. But it occasionally happens, rarely however, that on this Southern track we do come across ice in considerable quantities. It is then understood that as soon as that information reaches us, word is passed round and we go to the southern track, which is South of that one on the chart. Since 1898 I think only three times, to the best of my recollection, have we had to do that. We have gone down to this specially Southern track which is not marked, by agreement, but on this occasion we went South even of that track. (The Commissioner.) Which track? - (A.) After this 'Titanic' accident we went South even of that track, and only a couple of weeks ago we got word that ice was on that track, and we went South of that again; and in communicating with the Hydrographic Office at Washington, we got word from them only as late as this morning that it is practically impossible to go sufficiently far south to avoid all risk of meeting ice, because icebergs have been sighted from Bermuda." Then he goes on to say that in a short time it would be safer to go North.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, at any rate, it is not clear that those two reports of the 24th and 27th of April, 1912, were referring to this more southern track, but what my friend has called attention to is this, that he did distinctly say that since they have been on the more southern track they have had reports of ice. But as you see the date is a couple of weeks ago, it would be brought up to the third or fourth week in May.
The Commissioner:
I do not know when the new track was adopted.
The Attorney-General:
I am afraid we do not.
The Commissioner:
I should fancy these two dates, the 24th April, 1912, and the 27th April, 1912, refer to the old track.
The Attorney-General:
I should think so, but this is easily ascertained. The White Star can tell us. The reason why I connected the two was because they were the only ones produced, and he was referring to reports which he had had.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Captain Bartlett informs me that the new track further south was adopted on the 24th April.
The Solicitor-General:
That means the ship had started then, and was not in mid-Atlantic then.
Sir Robert Finlay:
No, not unless it was communicated with.
The Commissioner:
This is the report of the 24th April. I think it must refer to the old track.
The Attorney-General:
It must, I think.
The Commissioner:
On the American hydrographic chart the new routes are said to have been adopted on the 19th April, 1912.
The Attorney-General:
If that is right then Mr. Sanderson, when he said a couple of weeks ago must have been referring to those two of the 24th and 27th April, 1912. It does not quite fit in, but that is what he must have had in mind, I think.
Sir Robert Finlay:
We will have it looked up.
The Attorney-General:
If it was on the 19th April it would be right.
The Attorney-General:
There are two Captains whom my friend Sir Robert Finlay would like called. Your Lordship will remember we have called two already. As they have to sail it is necessary to call them at once.
WITNESSES.
Richard Owen Jones - Captain - ss "Canada."
Testimony
Edwin Galton Cannons - Captain - Atlantic Transport Line.
Testimony
Francis Carruthers - Surveyor - Board of Trade - Belfast.
Testimony
(Adjourned to Monday next, 11 o’clock.)
