of the Naval Office, has for some years published monthly hydrographic charts of the Atlantic showing the position of all derelicts reported to be afloat. I produce and will, if so desired, leave with the Committee, a pamphlet published by the Hydrographic Office of the United States containing full and valuable information. 1604. (Chairman.) Those we have already got?-It deals first with wrecks and derelicts in the North Atlantic Ocean from 1887 to 1893 inclusive. It deals with the number of reports received of wrecks and derelicts over a period of years, and shows that in the year 1893 no less than 732 reports of derelicts in the North Atlantic were made; secondly, it shows that the region of the ocean where derelicts are most common is in the Gulf Stream off the United States to the north of latitude, 30° north, and to the west of longitude, 60° west; thirdly, the average time a derelict is afloat is found to be about 30 days, but in the case of the schooner" Fannie E. Wolston " she was abandoned ou 15th October 1891 and was last seen on 20th February 1894, so that she had been a derelict 850 days and during that time had drifted about 7,025 miles.

on.

We

1605. (Mr. Trevor.) This is a very exceptional case, is it not? Yes. She is still supposed to be afloat. There are other instances showing derelicts known to be afloat 206, 536, 551, 310, 370, 347, 367 days and so Fourthly, it shows that from 1890 to 1893 inclusive 316 unidentified derelicts were noticed floating bottom up, an average of 80 annually and equal to 30 per cent. of the 230 reported, but unidentified, derelicts annually afloat in that period of four years; a number sufficiently large to prove the dangerous number of derelict vessels and to call for their prompt removal. I also refer to pages 15 and 25 of the reports of collisions of various vessels with derelicts, showing that from February 1887 to May 1893, 10 vessels were known to have been totally lost and 51 more or less injured. I also refer to the account given on pages 17 and 18 of what has been accomplished by the United States Government in destroying derelicts. During 1887 to 1893 inclusive, 73 were destroyed, of which 72 were by fire and one by torpedoes or ramming. I also refer to pages 16 and 17 showing the number of derelicts towed into port, 26 in the year 1893. The commanders in our service regard derelict wrecks as a serious source of danger to the Mercantile Marine and the travelling public, and the data given in the pamphlet bears this out. endeavour to reduce the danger from this source as far as possible. All the commanders of our steamers are regularly supplied with the charts of the Atlantic issued by the Hydrographic Department of the United States Service showing the position of derelicts. In addition we cable the positions of any derelicts reported in or near the track, and not shown on the charts, of which we think our commanders may not be aware, and also advise the other mail and passenger lines. I consider a floating derelict carrying no lights and giving no warning of her presence is a most serious danger. This is especially the case if the wreck is awash or almost awash. In darkness you can have absolutely no warning of its presence. The twin screw steamship "Naronic" belonged to the White Star Line of live stock and cargo steamers between Liverpool and New York. She was built at Belfast by Messrs. Harland and Wolff in the year 1892, and was in my opinion one of the finest and safest steamships ever built. She was a twin screw steamer of 4,222 tons register, divided into 10 watertight compartments separated by strong bulkheads going up to the main deck and constructed according to the recommendations of the Bulkheads Committee. She was built in excess of Lloyd's requirements. Her cargo was a perfectly safe one, and stowed in the most satisfaciory manner under our own supervision and by experienced men regularly employed by us for loading these steamers, and who do nothing else. She left Liverpool in perfect condition for New York, but was never heard of again, though some of her lifeboats were seen and one picked up. Any two of her largest cargo compartments could be open to the sea, and it would not materially affect her floating power, or bring her down to the load line fixed by the Board of Trade. Even with her engine and boiler compartments in addition open to the sea, she would have a large surplus buoyancy. Her loss has been the subject of great consideration with me, and without being able positively to say that she was lost through collision with a derelict which ripped open a number of her compartments as it passed along her side, I have little doubt that was the cause. From the position in which one certainly, and it is believed two, of her lifeboats were seen, we think we have been

able approximately to fix the place where the catastrophe, whatever it was, occurred. I have a chart showing the probable position marked on the company's track, and also showing the position of reported derelicts, &c. It is out of the ice region at that season of the year.

1606 (Captain Wharton.) Have you got that?—Yes (handing in the same). Shall I proceed

66

66

1607. (Chairman.) If you please?-I do not think it was a collision with another vessel being navigated. The loss of no such other vessel was reported. The reports of other vessels did not show that there had been any rough weather in that part of the Atlantic at the time. There are five large and powerful steamers, the Apollo," the "Horn Head," the "De Ruyter," the Alvo," and the "Naronic," all missing on the North Atlantic Ocean in one year. No definite cause can be stated for their loss. Such a thing has never occurred on any other ocean. It is, in my view, extremely desirable that steps should be taken to remove or destroy the floating derelicts in the North Atlantic. I produce cuttings from the Liverpool Journal of Commerce" of the 3rd April, 1st May, and 2nd June, stating the position of a number of derelict wrecks, and I also produce a chart upon which I have had the stated positions of these wrecks marked. Several of these are on or near the recognised steam tracks agreed and adopted by nearly all the large mail and passenger steamship companies, both foreign and British, to or from North America. The position of these courses is shown on the Hydrographic Chart printed in the The so-called tramp pamphlet I have produced. steamers I understand also follow these courses to a large extent. These courses are spread over a comparatively small part of the ocean, and it is in this area that floating derelicts are likely to be most dangerous, and it is most important to have them removed or destroyed. It is no doubt impossible entirely to remove or destroy these wrecks, but it may, I think, be accomplished to a considerable extent, at any rate in those parts of the Atlantic Ocean where they are most frequent, and which are the parts most used for traffic. The number of passenger, mail, and cargo steamers from ports in the United Kingdom and from European ports by way of the English Channel to the northern ports of the United States is very great, and the number of lives and value of cargo enormous. number of passengers carried across the North Atlantic Ocean is far in excess of that in any other part of the world. This is by far the most frequented portion of the Atlantic Ocean, or of any ocean of the world, and calls for special treatment. An immense number of timber-laden vessels cross it, and these are to a large extent old wooden vessels under foreign flags. They provide a large proportion of the derelicts which are of the most dangerous class being likely to keep afloat longer than iron vessels or other cargoes. With the aid of the Hydrographic Charts, and the reports which are made of floating derelicts having been seen, I consider it is feasible for one of Her Majesty's vessels, periodically told off for the purpose, to find, at any rate, a considerable portion of the derelicts, and either to remove or destroy them. For this purpose a vessel carrying a considerable amount of sail as well as auxiliary steam power would be able to remain at sea very much longer, and at very much less expense, than The wreckage of a broken-up derelict vessel would not, in my opinion, be so great a danger, as a passing steamship would almost invariably throw it off without injury; but a case came under my knowledge a short time ago where a steamer had sustained some damage owing to floating wreckage which broke a port covered by an iron dummy, damaging to a considerable extent mails and passengers' baggage.

a steamer.

The

1608. (Mr. Trevor.) Is that the case mentioned by Captain Parsell, of the "Majestic," who gave evidence here? Yes. I feel so strongly about the desirability of some action being taken that, speaking on behalf of the White Star Line, they would be willing to contribute a sum of money to this end. It may be mentioned that in the event of any derelict being towed in, considerable salvage would accrue to the Government. It may have been noticed that recently the "Fürst Bismarck," of the Hamburg-American Steam Packet Company,collided with a French barque, and although the latter was perfectly seaworthy the crew abandoned her. The commander of the "Fürst Bismarck" put a crew on board himself to take her in, other wise she would have been left a derelict of a very dangerous type. Some of our own steamers have come across vessels of a

only speaking from watching them for a good many years. I think that it is exceeding improbable that a berg would be 120 miles from other bergs at that time of the year.

1636. I am not assuming that there was only one berg that managed to keep 120 miles in advance of the main pack, but that the fact of ice reported there shows that there is a great deal of ice in every direction?— Not south of this.

1637. Why not?-Because it is not reported. You must bear in mind that there are dozens and scores of ships traversing that circle.

1638. What do you imagine became of that ice mass marked there on the chart? It is marked as seen on the 20th February. Do you take it from that that on the 21st it all disappeared ?—I take it that it had gradually drifted southward.

1639. But that is not reported on the chart; its position further south is not mentioned ?-The chart only represents one month. If you get the succeeding chart it might show it.

1640. Do you think that you are right in saying that there is no ice reported at that period of the year, when there is a great mass of ice shown?-I believe I am strictly accurate, as far as one can be in a matter of supposition, in saying that there was no ice in that locality on that date.

1641. That is simply your opinion?-That is all-I cannot go beyond it.

1642. And you attach no weight to a very large icefloe within 120 miles off?-None at all as affecting the Naronic."

1643. You would sooner assume a small derelicta speck in the ocean-of which you know nothing, and that a collision with that derelict was sufficient to destroy your specially carefully constructed ship, than that it might have been done by a very large berg, on which that ship would have gone at full speed, probably 12 to 13 knots, and so was lost?-My own feeling is that the probabilities are that the sunken wreck was the more likely to cause fatal injury than a collision with an iceberg. I have come across ice in a fog at night; and knowing that when they come across it at a certain longitude they are fully alive to its probable presence and they keep a special look-out in every way; and 1 think that the probabilities are distinctly more towards a sunken wreck than to ice, even supposing ice was reported.

1644. (Chairman.) Of course you admit the possibility of collision, or of some accident on board; and I go further, and ask: Are you perfectly satisfied of the ship's stability in bad weather with a heavy lurch ?— Perfectly.

1645. The lifeboats were seen ?—Yes.

1646.-Can you tell me where they were stowed; were they hooked on the davits ?-Yes.

1647. It is curious that they should become disconnected ?—The supposition is that the boats have been occupied.

1618. One was actually found ?-One was actually found, and the position of the gear was such as to indicate that it had been occupied. I forget exactly how it was now, but it indicated that it had been occupied.

66

1649. Of course you remember the case of the Oregon"?-Yes.

1650. That was a case of collision, and very little was known of the vessel that did it; she was never identified as far as I know.—I think it was supposed to be one of those coming up there with coal.

1651. It was a small vessel; the survivors reported that she hit her twice ?-The "Oregon" was in close proximity to New York. Where the "Naronic's" boats were found was a considerable distance off, 800 or 900 miles.

1652. The object of my question is that it might have been a collision, and yet that there should be no confirmatory evidence forthcoming, that is one of the possibilities, is it not ?-I may take too high a view of the structure of the "Naronic;" but as I said if you were to ask me for a safe vessel for someone who was nervous, I should say: "Go in one of those boats; they "have no passengers; and in case of an accident you "have got to deal with sailor people, not like a large passenger ship where the people might get into a

66

panic." My three sons have all come over in the cattle boats, in fact the eldest was homeward bound in one, and was in the position where the other ship was at any rate, bound; I hope to make voyage in one of the cattle boats myself.

1653. I do not think that anyone would question the excellence of the White Star vessels. A good deal of pressure has been brought to bear to increase the present mode of reporting what has been seen, and the complaint has been made, that on this side we do so much less than they do on the other side of the Atlantic, and that there they have got the United States Hydrographer's charts; presumably they think that something of the same sort should be done here. Do you advocate that ?-I think it would be almost doing the work twice over.

1654. What I want to bring out is this: do you attach much value to what appears in that chart ?-Our commanders do attach value to them.

1655. I can quite understand it with regard to the ice because that is a slow moving body, and its course is pretty well explained; but as far as regards derelicts this chart shows derelicts reported in the last three months, during which time they must have very largely moved from their position, and not only that, but by their own showing a great number of them must have gone down. Now, given that chart with these derelicts, do you think that it would influence the captains in any way. I am not calling in question that it may be a very good thing; but, as a practical man, I ask you whether you see any great value in it ?-Of course I am not a commander, and I can scarcely enter into the feelings of a commander. It is more for the commanders of those vessels to state; but we as owners certainly attach some importance to it, and take trouble and incur expense, and do all we know to inform them of it. How far it is of practical utility is a matter which it is difficult to find out.

1656. But it does not result, and you do not wish it to result, in any alteration of course, or tracks, because a vessel has been seen in a certain place on a certain day ?-Of course, if a derelict is reported in a certain latitude and longitude on a certain day, the steamer or sailing ship, whatever it may be, must get to port, and that fact has to be cabled over; say she is going to America, and the steamer that is leaving here has to get over so that, practically before the time she gets there you must naturally conclude that the derelict has moved off, away from the track.

1657. You have stated in one place that you thought that the dispersed wreckage would do very much less harm than the derelict intact?—Yes.

1659. I think it is only right to say that that is a matter which is considerably questioned P-Quite.

1659. And so much so that as things stand at present with timber-laden vessels, we consider it best policy to leave them alone ?-Timber-laden vessels are very dangerous.

1660. They are dangerous so far as a derelict is capable of injuring ?-They are chiefly under the foreign flag. An iron vessel, if she is laden with grain or the ordinary merchandise, very soon goes to destruction. It is those timber-laden ships that we dread most.

1661. (Sir Evan MacGregor.) I think you said you look upon the danger of derelicts as much greater than ice ?—Yes.

1662. That is not in accordance with the evidence we have generally received from captains ?-I can only give you my experience, and you must take it for what it is worth as against others. Of course that is a matter that is constantly in my mind; though I am no longer a member of the firm I still take the greatest possible interest in it. But I certainly think there is less danger from ice than from derelicts. The "Arizona" that struck an iceberg nearly broke in her bows, and generally there are two or three small compartments in the bows of a ship that act in the direction of safety.

1663. An officer of large experience was asked as to the relative danger, and he put it down that the ice was one thousand times more dangerous than the derelicts ?-Was he a seaman in the North Atlantic?

1664. Yes; of course it is a matter of opinion ?-Of course; no danger to me is so serious as an unknown danger. Within a certain latitude and longitude at certain times of the year you may fairly assume that

1667. And felt." You said, "ice can be felt and seen even in a fog." That is a definite statement ?Yes, it may be seen in a fog and it can be felt by the change of temperature when you get sufficiently near. It is a question of degree I think.

1668. (Sir Evan MacGregor.) As a matter of fact there is a very great immunity from loss of life considering the number of vessels crossing the Atlantic, is there not ?-Yes, but we still hope to reduce that.

1669. And you think that one cruising vessel that you suggest would have that effect?-Well of course it is difficult to assess the value of it. but you have had some practical experience of it. I feel keenly the responsibilities of those large vessels going away with probably 1,500 souls on board; and we personally would willingly contribute towards a fund with that object.

1670. Do you think that the other companies would be disposed to do that?-Well, I cannot answer for them. We would. The bulk of the people insure their ships.

1671. (Sir George Nares.) Do you know what is done near our own coasts in the way of removing the wrecks and derelicts ?-No, I do not. You must have been doing good by stealth, because I have not heard very much about it.

1672. Have you ever heard of any derelict near our coasts for the last 20 years causing damage?—No I could not say, not to my recollection.

1673. Do you know that the Lighthouse Boards are telegraphed to immediately a wreck is reported, and that they search for it within 100 miles ?--What machinery have the Lighthouse Boards for doing that? Excuse me for asking, but it is merely for information.

1674. By tenders. We have a return from the Trinity House for instance; they have gone as far as 150 miles off the coast; and occasionally men-of-war have been sent to search for a special ship at longer distances?-That I am aware of.

1675. If Great Britain removes all these dangers within a certain distance of her own coasts, do you think if the United States also systematically went to work in the same direction and removed the derelicts within say 100 miles, that that would remove a great many of the derelicts which are floating about the Atlantic?-Having regard to the extent of the mercantile marine of Great Britain, I feel that I should like to see her have a more active part in it. I should not like to see it taken up by any other nation.

1676. Would you propose that a British vessel should be sent to patrol the United States' coasts within 100 miles say ?—No, I think that would be a matter for arrangement with the Government of the United States. I do not think that there would be any difficulty on the part of the United States in meeting that. Nearly all Americans travel sooner or later to Europe, and they get more or less interested in shipping matters, the dangers or otherwise of the journey; consequently they are more alive to it than we are. We generally go for a holiday to the continent, but they come to Europe.

1677. Do not those charts which are published by the United States only show that the derelicts emanate from near their own coasts, and they are within about 100 miles of their own coasts and drawn out to the Atlantic by the gulf stream ?-999 out of 1,000 commence their voyage either from Canada or the United States, but I should think principally from the Canadian ports.

1678. Do the United States' charts show that they come more from Canada than from the United States' ports, because I read it otherwise?—No, I am taking it on account of the timber ships, chiefly from St. John's and the lower ports.

1679. Is not that supposition, do the charts show it? -The charts do not show the port of departure of any of the derelicts, the charts merely show that they are found there.

1680. As to the " Naronic," have you been able to trace any known derelict anywhere near her position at about that time when she was lost in February?-I think that the chart which I put in shows that there are one or two derelicts marked.

1681. Then they must be others than those shown on the American charts, because the United States gives us nothing about the time of February 21; there has been no report from the United States of any derelict anywhere near there throughout February that I can trace?-There is a vessel reported March 20th.

1682. That is a month after the "Naronic" was lost ? -But then she may have been there-I mean it does not follow that she was not afloat previous to that day. 1683. (Captain Wharton.) You cannot tell ?—No, I cannot tell.

1684. (Sir George Nares.) If the Government undertook any duty in connection with searching for derelicts, beyond what they at present do, sending a special vessel for a special derelict or to search generally for derelicts near our own coasts, the service would have to be a continuous one ?—It ought to be.

1685. The life of the derelict being only on an average about one month, when that month has passed as they are removed others will occur or may be expected to occur? Or may be expected to occur. There is a certain average number afloat, and unfortunately as they disappear their places are supplied by others.

1686. In your opinion how many vessels would have to be sent out to search, even adopting your route between Great Britain and New York ?-If the United States Government continue their policy of sending vessels out to cruise within a certain number of miles off their coast, and if we send out a vessel, we can make an experiment and see the result of it. It is all more or less speculation as to what will be the practical result.

1687. But still as the advisers of the Government, this committee must see whether there is a chance of being able to do any good. You will agree to that ? Yes, except that the probable advantages to my mind would justify the expenditure that would have to be incurred.

1688. In that direction I would ask what is the range that we can see those derelicts bottom up from a vessel? -I think the range unfortunately is very small.

1689. Therefore a vessel even with a man at the masthead can only command a certain area on each side of her as she is steaming along ?-Perhaps before the vessels get to that state that they are bottom up, they might be discovered when floating right side

up.

1690. I will take it in regard to looking for a vessel that is only just wrecked, even then I suppose we can only command a view of five or six miles on each side? -Yes, or perhaps further.

1691. That is such limited range of ocean that it would surely require more than one vessel to be cruising about, if anybody undertakes it at all I mean ?—You are one of the conservators of the Mersey are you not?

1692. I am a professional officer of the Board of Trade? Well, there was a great pressure brought to bear to get the bar deepened in the Mersey, and it was only after pressure that they made it, and now it is navigable for ships of moderate draught at any time of the tide.

1693. That was an engineering question, surely that was thought out by capable engineers?-No, the engineering element was decidedly against it, and it was the laymen who put it forward, and I was trying to show that the laymen, although perhaps not always right, are entitled to have their way in this case, because the cost is so small.

1694. But the laymen might tell us how many vessels they want, to carry out this searching?-Give us an experimental ship, and let us see what results follow from that experimental ship.

1695. An experimental ship to traverse the Atlantic must be a vessel about as capable as one of yours for keeping the sea. You say that she could be sailing and

save steam that way; but must she not search on a direct line, and if so to keep on that direct line must not she be a steamer?-To keep on that direct line she must be a steamer, but with a view of economy we thought of that auxiliary power, partly sail and partly steam.

1696. Can a vessel when steaming to the westward in the Atlantic with auxiliary power keep her required position ?-Perhaps not.

1697. (Chairman.) And must she not also be capable of towing for considerable distances ?-Yes, under certain conditions, certainly.

1698. She must have power and coal capacity ?-Considerable coal endurance she must have, but then she need not necessarily be steaming full speed constantly. When in the locality she would be half boiler power.

1699. (Sir George Nares.) Taking your steamers that are keeping to the actual line, can you give us how many derelicts have been seen by one of your ships in a dozen or 20 voyages?-They may go 20 or more voyages and never see one.

1700. Would not that most probably happen to this vessel that was sent out to search if she is to stick to the line ?-Except that she would be going to find that which the others wish to avoid. It would be a case of seeking and trying to find what the others would wish to avoid.

1701. But they are keeping a look out, and they are subject to your special telegraph to tell them that there is a derelict ?-Except this, that if one of the liners saw this vessel, and reported passing a derelict in a certain position, that vessel would go to seek for the derelict.

1702. (Chairman.) But you have got to get the information to this ship?-Yes.

1703. (Sir George Nares.) Are we to take it that it is a very rare thing for any of your captains to sight a derelict in crossing the Atlantic, and that, in fact, would be the same as the evidence that we have had from one of the captains of the White Star Line-It is the exception.

1704. It is the exception ?-Yes, fortunately so, too. The area is considerable, although you keep on certain

routes.

1705. (Mr. Trevor.) As to the value placed by laymen on this United States' Pilot Chart, your view is that it gives you very valuable information ?-My view is that it gives useful information.

1706. Useful information. Would you be surprised to know that a very efficient captain has told us in evidence that he never deviated one inch out of his course, although he had been informed that the derelict reported was in his near neighbourhood, and by his calculation he knew where it would be at one time. The question is 827: "Do you think that any captain "would turn an inch out of his way on account of "what was on those charts ?-I do not believe that "they would." Again, in question 831; "But you "never have made practical use of the chart in the way "of turning one inch out of the way, and you cannot "increase the look out?-I have never altered the of the Majestic;' and I do not believe course "that anybody else has deviated from their course on "account of the chart." There is the opinion of one of the most efficient captains of the most efficient line of steamships going across the Atlantic. Do you put your opinion against his ?-Well, of course I have a great respect for professional opinion, but there are times I keep to my own opinion. My experience is that when I try to get professional opinion I try to get it from various quarters, and then I endeavour to weigh that professional opinion, and draw my own conclusion from it, being guided by my own knowledge of the men from whom I draw it.

66

6

1707. But you are not suggesting for a moment that the knowledge of the captain of the "Majestic" is not very extensive ?-Not in the least. I have the greatest possible respect for his opinion, and consult him frequently, as I do others, and then I weigh their views and endeavour, rightly or wrongly, to form conclusions thereon.

1708. Then upon another part of this subject. Have you ever considered the difficulty which might arise from the various nationalities of those derelicts? Could, for instance, the United States' vessels searching

for derelicts destroy, say, a Swedish or a German derelict, without consent either of its owner, who may be unknown, or of the Government to which that owner belongs?-I do not know that a policeman in this country hesitates to take up a foreigner if he is a wrongdoer, owing to his nationality; and I do not see that we should hesitate to destroy a wrongdoer on the

ocean.

1709. Whichever vessels destroyed her, do you think that it would be of no consequence ?-I think certainly not, except a canse of thankfulness that a vessel which was dangerous had been destroyed.

1710. Do you not think that it would be necessary to come to some international arrangement with all maritime nations for the destruction of these derelicts? -Not all. Some of the principal ones. Take Great Britain first, United States, France, Germany, Scandinavia. I think if they were agreed upon it, I do not think that we need trouble others. I think that the others would take the advantage, if it proved to be advantageous, in the course which was decided upon.

1711. Then if such searching for derelicts was established by this or any other Government, could it be confined to the North Atlantic P-I think so.

1712. Ought not the traffic route to India and Australia be similarly benefited ?--You have not the same source of danger. You have not got those timberladen ships. The traffic with India and Australia is chiefly in iron vessels, carrying mixed cargoes, and in case of anything happening to them it is only a question of a very short time until they disappear.

1713. But surely a passenger ship to Australia might be seriously hurt by derelicts, say off Cape Finisterre ? -I am not aware of any timber-laden ships traffic in that direction.

1714. You think that derelicts are only dangerous when they are derelict timber-laden ships ?-Chiefly so. I think the fact of four full-powered ocean steamers disappearing within a year on the North Atlantic, and nothing having been heard of them at all has a tendency to show that there is something. You never heard of a steamer disappearing in the southern trade in that way. I am not dealing with the vessels in the Black Sea, and those deeply-laden, or the cargo shifting, but I am dealing with large steamers. Of course a great many vessels disappear in going across the Bay of Biscay; but I am talking now of large, full-powered steamers, properly laden. Of course there is a great change in the construction of those within the last few years, all in the direction of safety.

1715. Do you think that the trade in the North Sea and the Baltic are not entitled to the same protection that you claim for the trade in the North Atlantic ?-It would be far from me to say that they are not entitled.

1716. At any rate you would like to be safe first ?Only on the grounds of the traffic, and the risk to the numbers of people, and the values of the cargoes, that is all, not on any other grounds.

1717. But you would be inclined to admit, would you not, that any arrangement for the North Atlantic must eventually, at any rate, be extended to other regions of the ocean?-That would entirely depend upon the regions in which you propose to extend it. I have travelled round the world more than once, and the conditions are so different.

1718. Have you ever considered in your scheme what is, or what you would think, the best mode of destroying a derelict?-I should think by fire where practicable.

1719. But would water-logged timber-laden derelicts easily burn? - Naturally, I presume, you would saturate them with petroleum or some other inflammable oil.

1720. Then I suppose the vessel searching for derelicts must have on board inflammable oil ?—It ought to be provided.

1721. Ordinarily ships are not allowed to carry it ?— Yes.

1722. Below a certain flashing point?--There is a type of steamers that carry it in tanks, and also another type of steamers that carry it in cases; ships go out to India and Japan with thousands on thousands of cases.

1723. But petroleum allowed to be taken on those vessels is oil that is above a certain flashing point?Yes.