170. The sunken wreck is a matter we are not dealing with. The scope of our inquiry is confined to floating derelicts, and once you come to striking a thing on the bottom it is as likely as not to be a rock?-They say "The engines were stopped immediately, and the lead "thrown over with 17 fathoms of line, but no bottom 61 was found."

171. At the preliminary inquiry they assume it to be very probable that she struck a rock. We have got the case? That is the protest of the captain which I have read from.

172. On the finding of the court ?-No, this is the original protest which the captain entered in the Pro. vince of Nova Scotia on landing. There is some doubt by the authorities whether it was a derelict or not, and there is no doubt that in a good many cases——

173. No; they think the probabilities were that it was a rock; they mention the Bull Rock?-There is no doubt that a ceriain number of reported collisions with derelicts have got a similar explanation.

174. They might have struck vessels or rocks on the bottom? This is only a protest that the captain entered.

175. Without going into very much detail, perhaps you can tell us if you have any practical suggestion which would make the thing better?-As a matter of evidence, if your Lordship allows me, I would only mention the facility with which the petition deposited with the First Lord of the Treasury was signed. It was got up entirely by myself and people representing over 24 million tons of shipping signed it, and everybody was only too glad to sign it. There was no difficulty in getting the signatures.

176. (Mr. Trevor.) There never is?-I beg your pardon; it is very difficult to get captains to sign anything as a rale.

177. But the terms of that petition are very general. 178. (Chairman.) It does not follow that they ever experienced such a case themselves. It is very easy to sign a petition like that for somebody to do something?

And I believe there is not a captain that has navigated the Atlantic two years in succession who has not seen some vestige of a derelict.

179. Can you give us the names?-No; but if I am allowed to say so now, if there is nothing done now I will endeavour to get the names of captains and information as to where and when they have seen them, only it is exceedingly difficult to get such statements together. Even this petition-and this is only part of it-has gone all over the East coast of North America from I might say St. Lucia to Montreal, and from Bayonne to Hamburg and Great Britain.

180. If I might say so, there is nothing practical in that? -No.

181. It is simply a request for an inquiry, and that is what we are endeavouring to carry out; and what we want to do first of all is to establish that there is a great danger to navigation from derelicts, which is a point rather questioned by many, and it is also a subject which is open to very grave consideration. We are endeavouring to find out actual facts, and if you can assist us with people who have seen these things, and who can give us full particulars about them, you will be doing us a great service-The Pilot Chart of the United States is probably the best authority.

182. Do you know that?-That is the monthly chart, and then there is the Liverpool Journal of Commerce. It has published in January or February of this year for the first time, and it is endeavouring to publish on the 1st of each month a list of those derelicts that have been seen.

183. (Mr. Trevor.) By whom?-By captains-reported

cases.

184. (Chairman.) You put the position on the chart -it is noted on the chart?-No, this is the "Liverpool Journal of Commerce"-the newspaper-the technical shipping paper. They are publishing now every month a list of the known derelicts.

185. But how long after date ?—They publish them on the first of each month.

186. But it is recorded that a derelict was seen a month ago perhaps ?--Yes, some.

187. Can you say, as a practical man, that there is any object in that; is it any use to anybody?—No; it is only the best they can do. The United States are publishing them every week.

188. But do not you think that information as it is received, after it has been reported at the Hydrographic Office and issued, is not only of no use; but that it is worse, for it is actually misleading?-I would hardly call it misleading. It is the best they could do. They could not publish it every day.

189. No; that is just it. If you could immediately convey the information to a captain that a derelict is in such and such a place he would avoid it. But perhaps that chart shows the position of all the derelicts for the past three months P-The position-much longer sometimes I should think.

190. (Mr. Trevor.) But derelicts do not stand still in the ocean?-No; but they give the position for more than three months. They show the drift for a year perhaps.

191. (Chairman.) But they can only be borne out en the derelict has come ashore. That is the only absolute certainty of the direction of a derelict-the fact of it having appeared?-No; the names are seen, and the names are painted on them sometimes.

192. (Sir George Nares.) In the Sagasso Sea they go round and round?-They are positively known, and sometimes they are drifted backwards and forwards with the north-westerly gale. Take the case of the "Ems" the other day, one of the Bremen line of steamers going to New York; I am not sure if she started from Southampton or Gibraltar. Steamers that get disabled are generally seen so long as they remain in the main track of traffic by other steamers every third or second day. If you read up the reports of shipwrecked crews they say generally "We saw a ship coming near so and so at more or less short intervals," so that you might presume that a derelict is also seen often by passing steamers if you consider that they cannot be seen far. You can only see them for four or five miles at the outside, whereas a steamer you might see 10 or 12 miles in clear weather. They are therefore fairly accurately reported. They are not long adrift without being seen.

193. (Chairman.) Yes, but the report can give no accurate information as to the position of a derelict, and if a vessel goes to where a derelict was seen it is a hundred to one they will not find her ?--No; but they would know the current. For instance, if a derelict has been traced along a certain track, and the current is known, she could be traced further on.

194. They could compute that if the drift was always the same, but it must be affected by wind and all sorts of things, and also by the variation in currents, which are not accurately known?-Yes; I do not say it would be easy to find them.

195. (Mr. Trevor.) Can you at all suggest where they ought to be looked for?-Yes.

196. A month after that chart is published ?--Yes, because you see them a month before.

197. And you know which way they are going?More or less.

198. How-Because the currents are known, and it is known when there was a storm.

199. (Chairman.) They are known very roughly-there is a very great element of uncertainty-Yes. But if it was a matter of certainty they would be picked up, because it would be advantageous to do so from a mercantile point of view.

200. These derelicts, which are constantly seer, I take it are outside the line and not on the track of the ocean routes between England and the United States? -There are a great many just come up with the Gulf Stream and just crossing before the Gulf Stream goes higher up. I should say that a good many are just here (pointing on the chart on the wall). And the chart monthly shows that the greater number is seen here; there are few seen there. It is the drift of the Gulf Stream.

201. Do not you think it is very strange, if these derelicts are about in such numbers, that we have no information of them in this country, but only from

is a much worse state of things, regarding sunken wrecks in a shallow navigable water?-With regard to the Board of Trade or the Admiralty, I do not know which department deserves the credit of the great punctuality in United Kingdom waters, but it is attended to with the utmost possible speed. We had a case in the Belfast Lough quite lately as to a light-ship or beacon being shown for a sunken wreck.

232. (Mr. Trevor.) Is that the case of the "Xanthus "? -I do not know. It is on the County Down side, not he County Antrim side, and it was quite lately.

233. (Sir George Nares.) You ask us to approach other Governments with the special object of dealing with derelicts, but taking a single shore dealt with in one publication of this United States Chart in October, there are actually 20 sunken vessels within a few miles of the shore, and these form dangerous obstructions to the coast navigation. Would not it be better to set to work to remove these first ?-In case of any ship that gets damaged near the shore there would be the chance of saving life-I will not say property.

231. Now, dealing with the derelicts that are published on this same Pilot Chart for the United States that gives all this information, you would say that a statement like this is rather frightening to coasters going up and down the coast, would you not ?--Yes.

235. In this same chart some of the derelicts that are counted up are only actual spars; they are not ships. Some of them are buoys that have floated off, but still they are counted up as derelicts. Have you gone into the study of the question?-I have studied it, but I believe I have never got them all. Some charts were lost that were sent to me, but I have got the charts since. 236. You have seen a statement of the great number of derelicts in a certain number of years?-The Hydrographer of the United States does that.

237. Are you aware that these are not all vessels bottom up?-Oh, yes, there are spars and yards, probably with spars together, and buoys and things that get adrift generally-things that are generally drifting in the Gulf Stream.

238. What do you think is in the public mind when these statements are made? Do not you think they consider that the number of derelicts mentioned are actual floating ships?-I am afraid I have been guilty of misleading the public mind in my first statement, but since then all the statements that have been made by myself and by a good many others are correct statements, and refer to nothing but floating objects. I may refer to a statement I made on the 16th November through misunderstanding a report that came from one of the captains.

239. But do not you think that when a general statement is made the people who receive that general statement accept it in a totally different mind very often?-But it has been corrected. It has been cor rected as largely as possible through the press, and since then the matter has only been followed up ou what you might call the moderate statements.

240. Now supposing with the drift of the Gulf Stream we could clear away the derelicts within 10 to 50 miles of the shore of the United States we should clear away a good many that afterwards would float out into the Atlantic P-Yes, and they would be driven by the Gulf Stream farther to the east.

241. Then if Great Britain already clears her shores for 40 or 50 miles seawards, would it not be a step in the right direction if the United States would do the same with her shore ?-Certainly.

242. You would not want a British ship to go over there and clear away derelicts close to the United States shores? No, but there are the Canadian waters, and there are the West India Islands, which have considerable traffic. This very boat, the “ Cragside," may she have struck a sunken rock, or may she have struck a derelict, she was still in British waters.

No, but they have gone beyond what is called the three miles, or trade 40 mile limit.

245. (Mr. Trevor.) Assuming that something is done in the matter of these derelicts, what is your suggestion as to the mode of destruction? How would you destroy them? It would be a matter very much of individual cases. In case of a wreck such as is nearly flush with the water quite different means should be adopted from those adopted with regard to a vessel that can perhaps be towed to a safe harbour.

216. Towed to a safe harbour; is it the idea that if you meet a derelict in mid-Atlantic the vessel should be towed?-Under certain circumstances.

247. Towed many thousands of miles to a harbour on one side or the other ?-Yes.

248. That would take a deal of time, would it not ?A considerable time. I suppose the vessel would hardly tow more than 120 miles a day, so that you could calculate if you met it in mid-ocean what it would take, and then, besides, she would probably part

company.

249. And you would have to find her again ?—Yes. We know positively that it is a very easy matter to break a hawser when a vessel is in tow.

250. And the towing of one derelict might take up the time of a vessel for a very long time, and the vessel towing would not be available for looking out for other derelicts during that time ?-Quite so.

251. The witness who preceded you suggested that any derelict found should be burned, or destroyed by burning?-Some would not burn.

252. That is exactly what we endeavoured to elicit. Would you agree that some would not burn ?— Certainly.

253. Did not you cite in your evidence before the adjournment a case in which you said there was a derelict on fire from spontaneous combustion of coal? That was from the hydrographic report.

254. But yet, notwithstanding the fire on board, the derelict was not destroyed ?-Just so.

255. So that you would not favour burning as a mode of destruction ?-Iron ships you could not burn. 256. How would you get rid of them? Could you sink them?--Yes, generally speaking you could.

257. How is it that such a derelict has not sunk before your ideal vessel falls in with her?-If an iron vessel with a cargo of coal begins to turn she might float for ever, and, in fact, if a boat with water-tight compartments should turn over, I believe she could float for ever.

258. Has your correspondence with the United States Hydrographer been a personal correspondence? Did you commence it ?-Yes.

259. In a similar case in England, would it be the custom for a gentleman at Belfast or anywhere else to address the Hydrographer personally with a communication of this description ?-I addressed the Smithsonian Institute, being the scientific department of the United States Government, and asked them to be kind enough to supply me with the publications on the subject.

260. Then you did not write to the Hydrographer direct ?-No,

261. And is the Hydrographer's answer to you the reply of the Smithsonian Institute? That letter was sent from the Smithsonian Institute to the Hydro. grapher.

262. My object is only to ascertain the mode of procedure in the United States, because I think the Hydrographer here will bear me out in saying that in this country, at any rate, the Hydrographer, as a rule, does not communicate direct with A., B., or C., whoever writes to him, but that the communication comes either through the Lords of the Admiralty or through the Government of the country to which it is addressed?I cannot speak for the whole of the United States Service, but it is nothing unusual to get a direct answer from any United States Department. I get every year the reports on labour that are published--they are always sent to me direct.

263. That is in the way of printed matter?-Yes. 264. But I am talking of a written correspondence--personal correspondence. Have you any personal knowledge of the present Hydrographer of the United States-No, I cannot say positively. I addressed the Smithsonian Institute and got their answer, but this

answer is in answer to what I asked him to be kind enough to let me know, as my statement which I made in the Chamber of Commerce was contradicted more or less. I wanted to make certain, and therefore I took the liberty of sending him what I said.

265. Then did you consider his reply to be his own personal opinion ?-No

266. Or the opinion of the United States Government on your query ?-I would consider it to be the opinion of his department, but not of the Government.

267. (Sir Courtenay Boyle.) I am sorry to say I have not heard your evidence, but I want to know from you what you have learned that the "Kearsage

66

or the Vesuvius" have done. Take the "Kearsage" first. What has the "Kearsage" done?-I have only got this vague statement which I have here.

268. I will ask you the question, and so put it more definitely. Have you got information that the "Kearsage" has destroyed or annexed any floating derelict outside the limit of territorial waters ?-I have no data, but I believe that is so.

269. You believe so ?-Yes.

270. Only from your belief?—Yes.

271. What is this foundation of that belief P-I know that they have gone outside the United States waters.

272. A good many ships have done that ?-I have no definite data on the subject as to which ships they have destroyed; the fact of the matter is I did not wish to correspond. I did not wish to entangle any Government department whether it should be the United States Government or this Government.

273. Then if anybody were to say that the United States are doing a great deal more than the British Government at the present moment, there would not be much foandation for that, would there ?-Not to the best of my belief and knowledge.

274. Let us first assume that a ship detached for the purpose found a floating timber ship water logged and floating almost level with the surface of the water, what would the ship detached for the purpose do with that water logged derelict. How would it destroy it, or what would it do in your opinion ?-So much would depend upon circumstances, and you will understand I am not a practical mariner and I really would not like to express an opinion that could be easily contradicted. I approach the subject purely from a material standpoint, and I myself would know what 1 would do; but I do not say that that would be the correct thing, for I am not a mariner. But an ordinary merchantman has instructions to set a derelict on fire if he can; that is to say. the weather must be fairly fine-you must not run the risk of the crew falling into the water; but you must send a barrel or two of petroleum on board to fire her.

275. (Captain Wharton.) Are those official instructions ?-No; but the ship's husband would give instructions, saying, fire a derelict if you can, but do not lose too much time about it.

276. (Sir Courtenay Boyle.) You said in answer to a question that you did not think you could burn a derelict timber vessel ?-Not easily.

277. I understand you to adhere to that answer; and what would you do then, supposing the ship detached for the purpose came across a derelict timber vessel consisting of a large number of heavy spars or heavy pieces of timber on board. What would you do?—I have an opinion, but it is the opinion of a layman. I would try to bore some holes into the deck, if I could, and try to pour petroleum or something that would burn into her, or if I had dynamite she might be blown up; but an ordinary merchantman of course carries no gun-cotton or dynamite.

278. But I am talking of the vessels detached for the purpose of finding derelicts with the appliances which science affords. What would such a vessel do, do you think?—I am not an expert.

279. But the suggestions as to doing something have emanated very largely from you and before we advise the Government, we want to know what the suggestion is ?-If I had the facilities I would try to fire it with petroleum first and then fire a shot or two into her, but the effect it would have would depend upon the material you have to fire with. If you had a new conical shot it would probably go through and do very little harm.

280. Then the only suggestion you can give practi- Mr. O. Jaffe. cally is firing?-Firing.

281. And yet you have told us just now that fire 20 April 1894. would probably not burn a derelict timber vessel ?— No.

282. What else ?-Explode her if possible, but I am not an expert in explosives, and I would not like to undertake to say that it would be safe or proper. I would not like to say that with an ordinary crew you could manipulate explosives so that you could put explosives on board and fire them by electricity.

283. There would be no difficulty in blowing her up, but if you did so would not the effect be this: that you would set afloat a lot of large spars or large pieces of timber which would be each of them just as great an element or nearly as great an element of danger as the vessel itself?-Oh, no. They would be, comparatively speaking, no danger, There was a supplement published to these charts in October 1888, and according to that there were 41,000 logs set free which have been observed, and observed by 150 ships without reporting any special damage to them. The " Leary Log" is quite a well-known publication.

284. If we found something like 103 vessels had colli. sions with, or collisions which are attributed to, derelicts and if we found that of these, 96 collided with spars and two of them were lost and only six collided with derelicts and of these none were lost, would not that scem to show that the danger of colliding with a spar was greater than the danger of colliding with a derelict P-If that is the evidence the Government has collected we cannot say no, but that is not the generally accepted theory in the mercantile navy.

285. Then I put it to you that the suggestion would be that a derelict destroying vessel, if she came across a timber ship, should blow her up?-Yes, or fire her if it is possible.

286. Now how many vessels do you suggest the English Government should detach for the purpose of searching for derelicts?--That is hardly for me to say. I should say that like everything else if a small beginning is made with one or two it should be tried further if possible.

237. What is the area of the ocean which would be searched for these vessels. Have you any notion in square miles P-I should say about 120 miles north to south, and from the West of Ireland to the Bank of Newfoundland about 2,000.

288. Is not the area of the Atlantic about 11,000,000 square miles?--I could not say exactly. You know, no doubt.

289. How many vessels in that area could two derelict searching vessels come across and destroy in a year, if they found them ?-If they destroyed three, I should think it very fair work.

290. You would think that sufficient ?-I should consider that if each steamer destroyed three in a year it would do.

291. Do you think the English Government should detach two vessels for the purpose of destroying three derelicts a year?-If they are in the regular course of transatlantic trade--yes. If they are in the regular track of British trade--yes,

292. What steps would the vessels searching for derelicts take to find a derelict. How would you, if you were a captain, conduct your operations?-Supposing I were in mid-ocean about 40 degrees, I would just endeavour to get reports from ships passing. I would ask every mercantile ship that has seen one to report; and, to make the search-ship more conspicuous at night, I would throw two electric beams at an acute angle, so that she could be seen far off.

293. So that your vessel would be searching with the electric light every night on this voyage?—No, I beg your pardon. I would throw an electric beam high up so that other vessels could sight her with greater facility than with the ordinary head-light. She would probably be seen a great deal farther off.

294. The derelict searching vessel could, but how about the derelict itself?-They could only find her in the day time. She could never be found at night.

295. Have you calculated the probabilities of a vessel finding a derelict?-They are not very great.

298. And you have assumed that these two vessels were lost by collision with derelicts?—Yes.

299. The "Naronic" was lost, I think, about February 1893 ?-Yes.

300. Are you aware that at that very time there was Naronic's" course ?-I a very large mass of ice in the have not seen the charts for 1893.

301. That is the chart showing the ice in February (handing a chart to the witness). Allow me to point it out to you. There is the great mass of ice reported on the 15th to the 20th ?-But she would hardly steer that course, would she?

302. No, I should not think so?-She would hardly steer that course. I have to apologise if I make any nautical mistake, for I am not a nautical man.

203. Certainly. But you are aware that ice may be sighted by one ship and reported as being in a particular locality, and that there may be other ice part of the same pack which would be very likely to be met with by another ship somewhere else in the vicinity ?— Yes.

304. Then do not you think that it is rather a large assumption to assume that the Naronic" was lost by collision with a derelict, which is a mere speck in the ocean, rather than by collision with some detached pieces of ice belonging to that very large floe which is marked upon the United States pilot chart, that ice being seen?-As soon as the ice approaches the steamer finds that the temperature decreases, but certainly in the month of February they would not feel it.

305. This was February ?-I should say that the danger of striking ice, at least of a ship being totally lost through ice, is greater in the month of February than July, because in the month of July she would feel it beforehand, and in the month of February she might

not.

306. Why do you say a ship would feel the ice beforehand ?-There is a certain chill in the air. I have crossed the ocean very very often and there is a certain chill in the air on the approach of ice.

307. And you have often seen the ice ?-Yes.

308. Before you came near the ice you do not feel the chill-in a thick fog, we will say ?-It depends on the wind. If there is a north-westerly wind blowing and you are coming from the east you would not always feel ice much beforehand. Then you would be in the ice before you would know it, but that is a question rather for a captain than for me.

309. But I am taking what you said. Do you think that ice in the Atlantic is a danger at all ?--It is certainly a danger.

310. Do you think it is a greater or less danger than derelicts Taking it all in all it is, I suppose, greater.

311. I will not ask you the question because it is no use, but I am the Hydrographer of the Admiralty, and I tell you it is an established fact that the diminution of temperature on the approach of ice is so infinitesimal that nobody can detect it ?-I was not speaking about the water but about the air.

312. I am speaking of both the air and the water. There has been a very great deal of attention called to this subject, because as a sailor I, as did all other sailors, attached great importance to it, and if we could only have thought that we could avoid ice by noticing the diminution in temperature we should have been very happy. It has been held in past years that it was so, but these are loose statements that the theory has been founded on and more attention has been paid to observations made, and it has been shown incontestably that you can never feel certain (you may sometimes) of the approach of ice by either sea or air. So that I put it to you that seeing that mass of ice was in the Atlantic, and that the dimensions of it were unknown, do you not think that the chances were greater that the Naronic" struck ice than that she struck a derelict, which you do not know existed?-The chances are certainly greater. As to the assumption that the steamer was totally lost from having struck something,

the first assumption would be that she may have struck ice because ice is so much the greater danger, and damage would be done, and you never know when you are near it, There may be shoals of ice a foot or 2 feet above the water, and 4 or 5 feet deep, and there may be a very large floe a mile or two miles long, so that you might run against it, it being just above the water, and you might not see it at all. I believe there are two-thirds of the ice below the water.

313. Seven-eighths below?-I thought it was twothirds, but let it be seven-eighths. You really might strike a floe of ice that might be 5 feet deep and the extent of all London, and it would be a very hard object to strike. But you cannot remove the ice, and we might remove the derelicts.

66

666

316. Quite so?--This says:" Bottle picked up. New "York March 30th. The Sun's' Norfolk correspon"dent telegraphs that a champagne bottle has been "found on the beach at Ocean View, Virginia, containing a letter alleged to have been written by John "Olsen, a cattleman on board the White Star steamer Naronic"; it is dated February 19th, and runs as "follows: The ship is fast sinking. It is such a "storm that we can never live in the small boats. One boat with its human cargo has already sunk. We have been struck by an iceberg in the blinding The ship has floated for two hours. It is now 3.20 in the morning and the deck is level with the sea.' In conclusion the writer asks the finder "of the letter to report to Messrs. Kerseys, the New "York agents of the line."-Might I ask has that been done?

66

66 6

66

snow.

317. Has what been done?-Has that letter been sent to the agents of the line?

318. I do not know anything about that. This is only a cutting from a newspaper ?-You cannot rely on these cuttings, because I can show you a botile with a message about the Horn Head." It is written on a whiskey bottle label, that never was on the "Horn Head." If your Lordship would like to have the bottle and the label, I am quite sure I shall be most happy to send it to you.

319. In fact you do not think we ought to place much confidence in that ?--We have got the bottle of the "Horn Head" and that is also said to have been washed ashore, but it has a label on it with some whiskey, when there was no such whiskey on board the "Horn Head."

320. Then, in fact, you think that is not good evidence at all? There was a lifeboat picked up I believe.

321. I know that was so, but you admit that we require good evidence in these cases, either one way or the other, and that we must not make assumptions?That is so.

822. Then do you still think that the loss of the "Naronic" is a case that you can quote as a case of a vessel being lost by collision with a derelict?—No, I can only quote a ship as being lost by a derelict that actually has been lost according to evidence, where there is real evidence to show it. This is only an assumption, and I believe I said so at the time.

323. Yes, but you must remember that the "Naronic" being lost was the cause of your starting the subject ?— The Horn Head."