7563. Is that a custom of your company?
- It is not a custom; it is a thing that is done -
7564. Is it a habit?
- No; it is not a habit. .It is done on very special occasions. I think it was done on the occasion of a former wreck.
7565. Where?
- The Republic. I think Binns was allowed to make a statement to the press.
7566. For money?
- For money.
7567. Binns was the operator who stuck to his post?
- Yes.
7568. And who has been so highly commended throughout the world?
- Yes.
7569. And you say he was permitted to sell his story?
- Yes; if my recollection is correct, he was.
7570. Mr. Marconi, do you wish the committee to understand that you approve that method?
- I was in favor of it, or at least I approved of or consented to his getting something out of this story.
7571. I know, but let me ask you this. With the right to exact compensation for an exclusive story detailing the horrors of the greatest sea disaster that ever occurred in the history of the world, do you mean that an operator under your company's direction shall have the right to prevent the public from knowing of that calamity - (interrupting). No.
7572. Hold on a moment (continuing). From knowing of that calamity except through the exclusive appropriation of the facts by the operator who is cognizant of them?
- I say, not at all. I gave no instructions in regard to withholding any information, and I gave no advice or instructions in regard to any exclusive story to anybody. The only thing I did say or did authorize was that if he was offered payment for a story of the disaster, he was permitted, so far as the English company went, to take that money.
7573. Mr. Marconi, if that is the case - you say, you were an officer of the British company?
- Yes; and for that reason I was consulted about it.
7574. If his mouth were to be closed, if the mouth of this operator were to be closed so that the details of that catastrophe could not be printed, would not the English Government and the British people be deprived of the knowledge which was in the exclusive possession of this operator?
- Within every deference, I do not quite understand your question or what you are referring to.
7575. I have not disclosed my whole purpose, and I am not going to. I am just seeking to get what you know about it. - Yes; but, with every deference, I believe you are assuming - I may understand you wrongly - that I wished or instructed this man to withhold information.
7576. Did you know of the attempt of the President of the United States to communicate with the Carpathia through the Chester?
- Will you allow me to finish my answer?
7577. Certainly.
- I say emphatically that is not a fact.
7578. What is not a fact?
- That I tried to withhold any information.
7579. I have not said that you tried to withhold it. I hope you will not draw any such inference. I am just asking you if you did it. - My answer is, no.
7580. Do you know of the attempt of the President of the United States to get into communication with the wireless operator of the Carpathia through the Government station on the Chester?
- I heard of that through the papers, and when I got on board the Carpathia that night I asked the surviving operator -
7581. (interposing). Bride?
- Yes; Bride - what he knew about it. He stated - and, of course, I understand he will be called to give any further information on the matter - that the Chester had asked him for a repetition of the list of the passengers names.
7582. At what time?
- Of the survivors names.
7583. I understand; but what time was the request made?
- I do not know.
7584. All right.
- I did not go into that detail.
7585. Very well; go on.
- And that he told the Chester that this list had already been sent and acknowledged by a shore station.
7586. And that he need not answer any further inquiry from the Chester?
- No; I understand he gave him this information, and I understand he gave him some additional names. I asked him also in regard to the inquiry which it was stated had been sent on behalf of the President of the United States, and he told me that he had received no such inquiry; that if he had received it he certainly would have answered it, but he had not received any such inquiry.
7587. You are unable to fix the time when he said that he had not received such an inquiry, or when he replied that he had already furnished the information as to those surviving? You are unable to fix that time?
- Yes. I was unable to fix the time; but my question covered the whole time, so far as I meant it, in which the Carpathia was operating; that is, the whole time from the rescue of the passengers to her arrival in New York.
7588. You say that the operator on the Carpathia, Mr. Cottam, exercised by your permission - I beg your pardon; not by my permission.
7589. (continuing.) The right to sell the story which came to him in his capacity as an operator, for his own pecuniary benefit?
- I mean, sell a story.
7590. A story; but it may have turned out to be "the story"?
- Not necessarily.
7591. Not necessarily; but it may have done so?
- It may have done so.
7592. It depended on how close-mouthed he was from the time he conceived the idea of selling his story, did it not; and it might have been exclusive?
- It was not the intention that it should be exclusive.
7593. It was not your intention?
- No, sir.
7594. Was it your intention that the Cottam story or the Bride story should be exclusive?
- Certainly not; and I regret it, and I have expressed that already, that they had not said something already, something more explanatory, before they reached New York.
Senator Smith:
You have said that from Sunday night, when you were first apprised of this calamity, you frequently called up your office; that information was lacking; that the public were clamoring for details; that the world was interested in this information; that you were unable to get it satisfactorily. I would like to have you give the committee your best judgment as to whether the custom exercised by Binns in the Republic disaster and the privilege you gave to Cottam in the Titanic disaster had anything to do with your failure to get this information and the failure of the world to be apprised of the details of this horror. Before you answer I want that question read.
7595. (The question was read by the stenographer.)
- In my opinion, it had not, because these operators were never instructed not to give out news.
7596. Why did they not give it out?
- They should be able to answer that question themselves, I should say.
7597. You are the head of the wireless system, a recognized authority, a man who gives it your constant care, and a man of reputation and character, for whom the people have the highest respect, and I would like to have your judgment about it.
- About what?
7598. You are connected up with this matter through these intercepted radiograms, your name is mentioned, an injunction seems to have arrived at the Carpathia coming from you and your manager or chief engineer, and I would like the information I have asked for in that question, if you can give it.
- I wish to respectfully state that I have already testified that I have no knowledge whatever about any of these messages which were sent or are alleged to have been sent to the operator on the Carpathia.
7599. And you have not talked with Mr. Sammis about it?
- I state on oath that I did not talk to him on any single occasion.
7600. At the time or since?
- At the time or since.
7601. You have seen the rumors of this matter, have you not, in the papers?
- Yes.
7602. I have not seen those rumors; but after seeing those rumors did you talk with Sammis about the matter?
- I saw Mr. Sammis for a few moments some time ago, and I told him - I said, "You know that I did not authorize that message."
7603. When did you tell him that?
- I told him that since the survivors were landed. I do not remember the exact date.
7604. About what time?
- Three or four days ago, I should say.
7605. Have you talked within him about it since?
- No, sir. I should state in explanation, also, of this matter -
7606. Please do; I would like to have you, in your own way. I am not seeking to embarrass you at all. I simply feel it my duty to get the information I have asked for.
- What I meant and intended when I stated to the operator that he could take something for a story or for an account of the disaster was that the newspapers and reporters would be so interested in what he had to say, and in himself personally, in view of the fact especially that Bride had behaved in such a brave and gallant manner, that, without withholding any general information, they would be ready to pay him an amount for a story or a description which he could give them.
7607. Have you finished?
- Yes, sir.
7608. Mr. Marconi, did you expect the operator to syndicate this information, or to give it exclusively to one newspaper?
- I did not expect him to give it exclusively.
7609. Did you expect him to put the story up to the highest bidder?
- No, sir.
7610. Did you expect him to favor any particular news agency?
- I did not.
7611. Did you expect him to sell it to the Associated Press?
- No.
7612. Did you expect him to sell it to the other press associations, or any of them - either of them?
- I did not.
7613. You expected that he would impart his information to some newspaper?
- To some newspaper. I did not care which.
7614. And that newspaper could give him what it chose to give him for an exclusive story containing the details of the Titanic disaster?
- No; there was no idea of an exclusive story in my mind.
7615. If I understand you correctly, you did not seek to control the operator, at all, in what he would say or to whom he would say it?
- No; I did not.
7616. Do you know what the use of the words, "Arranged for your exclusive story for dollars in four figures, Mr. Marconi agreeing. Say nothing until you see me. J. M. Sammis," would indicate? What did he mean by "four figures"?
- I suppose it was something over a thousand dollars; but if you will allow me to repeat again -
7617. Please do. I wish you would say anything you want to about it.
- (continuing.) For the fourth or fifth or sixth time, I say that I know nothing whatever about those messages.
7618. And you understand I am not saying that you do.
- Thank you.
7619. I am simply inquiring. Do you know whether Cottam or Bride sold their story?
- I think they received remuneration for it, and that may be called "sold," I presume. I mean that they were paid for it.
7620. Do you know how much they got?
- I do not know how much Cottam got.
7621. Do you know how much Bride got?
- I was told that Bride got $500.
7622. From whom?
- From the New York Times.
7623. Who told you that?
- I think it was Mr. Bottomley.
7624. The general manager of your company?
- Yes. I should also say, I believe, one of the editors of the New York Times, either Mr. Ochs or Mr. Vanander.
7625. Was it expected or did any officer of your company receive any portion of it, within your knowledge?
- No; I do not believe anyone did receive any portion of it.
7626. You say you do not believe it. Have you heard that anyone did?
- No; I have not, but if I did hear it I would think it would be an extraordinary thing and absolutely wrong.
7627. Do you know what Cottam got for his story?
- I do not.
7628. Do you know who purchased his story?
- I think the New York Times got his story.
7629. The same paper?
- The same paper. But I am not absolutely certain of that.
7630. Are you yourself interested in any way in the New York Times?
- No.
7631. Is Mr. Bottomley?
- I do not think he is.
7632. Do you know whether he is or not?
- Well, perhaps I am wrong; but I have no knowledge in the matter.
7633. You do not know anything about it?
- I do not know anything about it.
7634. Is Mr. Sammis interested in the New York Times?
- I do not know.
7635. Is any officer of the Marconi Co. interested in the New York Times?
- I do not know. I do not think so, because if any one was I would probably hear of it in some way.
7636. Is any director of your company interested in the New York Times?
- No.
7637. Have you heard from any source any statement given as to the amount Cottam received for his story?
- No; I have not.
7638. Did you see his story?
- I saw the headlines of his story; I did not read it through.
7639. In the New York Times?
- In the Times.
7640. When?
- I suppose on the day it was published.
7641. What day was it published?
- I can not remember that.
7642. The day following the arrival of the Carpathia?
- I presume it was that day, but I can not say definitely.
7643. So they sold the story immediately after they arrived, and it was printed the next morning?
- So I understand.
7644. All of which was done with your permission?
- I did not give my permission for that.
7645. You did not oppose it?
- I knew nothing about it. I only said that he could obtain payment for an article.
7646. That is rather a consent, is it not?
- It is consent to the fact of obtaining payment - nothing else.
7647. It is consent, notwithstanding it violates the laws of the country in which you live. - It is not a violation of the laws of the country in which I live, with every respect.
7648. I thought giving out information was made a criminal offense in England. - I am afraid you misunderstood my previous answer. Giving out information of any message that passed through the hands of an operator would be a criminal offense.
7649. This man gave it out, did he not?
- No; he did not give any information of any message that passed through his hands.
7650. (Senator Fletcher.) He means messages from other parties. - Suppose the United States Navy had done that. Of course it is a Government department and would be privileged. But suppose an operator on another ship had given out messages that he had intercepted; he would be liable to prosecution.
7651. (Senator Smith.) The Titanic was a ship of the White Star Line?
- Yes.
7652. The White Star Line is a British company?
- Yes.
7653. The information that Cottam received over the wireless was from the operator of the Titanic. That information was imparted in New York the day following the arrival of the Carpathia, for $500, was it not?
- Will you repeat that?
(The stenographer repeated the question as above recorded.)
7654. Pardon me. We do not want to leave you in any doubt at all, Mr. Marconi. All the information regarding the sinking of the Titanic, at least the official information, was received by the operator of the Carpathia from the operator of the Titanic?
- Yes.
7655. That was a part of the detail of this horror, was it not?
- It was; but -
7656. Now, one moment, and then I will let you explain. I want to complete my question. That information you consented that your operators should give out?
- No, absolutely.
7657. What did the headlines of the New York Times article say?
- I do not know. I would have to have my memory refreshed in that matter; there have been so many headlines since the accident.
7658. If the article in the New York Times, given out by Bride or Cottam, detailed the information of the horrors that passed from the Titanic to the Carpathia by wireless that would have been improper, would it not?
- No; not in every case. The operator on the Carpathia was at absolute liberty to disclose any information which he personally received from the operator of the Titanic. The only operator that I saw the night the Carpathia go into dock, as I stated, was Mr. Bride. Mr. Bride had been, as we know, second operator on the Titanic, and had also assisted the operator on the Carpathia after he was rescued by that ship. Mr. Bride was not compelled by any law for regulation to withhold anything concerning his experience on either the Titanic or the Carpathia. He could give out his story in the same way that any other of the 800 passengers or crew were able to give out theirs. In regard to Cottam, the operator on the Carpathia, as I have stated, I did not see him that night. I gave him no instructions as to what he had to say or what he should not say. He was perfectly entitled to tell his story. It does not mean that an operator on a sinking ship - that the only means of making his story interesting is to disclose messages. He was there during part of the, I should say, awful time, when the survivors were rescued and brought to New York, and he had, no doubt, a great deal which was of interest to the public. I absolutely deny, in the most emphatic manner, that I stated or made any suggestion to him to divulge anything which it would be improper or unlawful for him to divulge.
7659. I am very greatly obliged to you for that statement, sweeping and broad and covering this situation, and I would not have you gather the impression, that I am seeking to impute any motive that you have is unworthy. Having this telegram signed "Sammis" and seeing the figures mentioned, I think that I was quite justified in seeking to ascertain what you might know about it; and the story that you yourself were willing he should release was the story of the horrors and the details which followed this calamity, of which he himself, or they, had personal experience, and over that you have not pretended to exercise any censorship whatever?
- I thank you for your remarks at the beginning of your question. I do not care whether it was through the New York Times or any other newspaper, but I was very anxious that the public should have the news of this disaster as quickly and as accurately as possible. I should also state that this message signed by Mr. Sammis and mentioning thefour figures was, I believe from the information before the committee, transmitted when the ship was practically entering New York Harbor. It was not transmitted when the ship was days out - a long way from shore. I do not know whether it would have been possible, with interference going on in New York Harbor, to have sent a story from the ship when the same was approaching the dock. I am not expressing any opinion of the message except to state the fact that I did not authorize it; and I might also say that I do not like it.
7660. You have not approved it?
- No.
7661. You are a British subject, and do not live in this country?
- I am Italian, sir.
7662. Being a foreigner, I want to draw your attention to the statement you have just made, that you were quite willing that the story of this catastrophe should go out to the public?
- Yes.
7663. You do not have any notion, do you, that the public all read the New York Times?
- I mean a part of the public.
7664. Exactly. But would it not have been a great deal better if that information had been flashed from the ship to the Marconi office, or if a reply had been given to the Chester which contained all of that story, so as to let it reach the world in that way?
- I am in absolute agreement with you; it would have been very much better.
7665. In so far as the regulations of your company, or its custom or habit, have gone in the past, this does not look exactly like the right thing to do, does it?
- I have already stated that I did not approve of this message and I agree that it would have been better if the operator had used his discretion and sent a description of what occurred, at an earlier date.