"the next division. The next division of the report is as follows:-(2.) Derelicts in the North Atlantic. "In the North Atlantic, particularly in that part of it bordering the North American Coast westward of a "line drawn from the Bermuda Islands to Cape Race, "Newfoundland, derelicts are so frequently met with, "that they must be considered a serious danger to navigation. As in these waters, the vessels whose safety is imperilled by their existence are exceedingly numerous, the number of persons on board of them very large, and the value of these ships and "their cargoes very great, and as, moreover, the 66 66 66 66 66 66 64 chances for locating derelicts and for determining the direction of their drift are particularly favourable, the Committee propose that the various maritime Powers should come to some agreement respecting their removal. In case this proposition should be entertained, it is submitted that the respective Powers should also come to some understanding regarding the proprietary rights which may still exist, "whether in the ship or in her cargo. Besides this, it scems desirable to point out that amongst other "matters that will necessarily have to be considered, "it would be well to take steps to prevent the destruc"tion of derelicts that might readily have been saved, "and to make sure that in case destruction has been "decided upon, no evidence of crime should be des"troyed also." Therefore, at this Conference, in which 27 Maritime Powers were represented by 62 delegates, they came to the unanimous conclusion that practically it could not be done?-Because of the matter of expense, I should think. 50. On that do you think that Great Britain had better open the question again as to an international agreement being come to ?-I do. Great Britain might do it on her own account, irrespective of all other nations, for her own safety. It 51. But do you think that other countries would join us?--I should think the Americans certainly will. does not much matter that the others should. 52. You stated that the United States Government have fitted out two steamers for this purpose already? -Yes. 53. Do you know what we have been doing ourselves in Great Britain for many years past? No, but I should be very glad to know. All I know is that the men-of-war and steamers have to report what derelicts they see. 51. Do you know that the Trinity House alone have dealt during the last 5 years up to the 31st March with 423 cases of floating derelicts or wrecks or floating logs of wood round our coasts?-Sunken wrecks I do, but not floating derelicts. 55. But without giving the actual numbers, because I only got the return in last night, a great number of these, certainly about a dozen, have been towed into harbour by the Trinity House vessels.-Just so. 56. And also that vessels on the coast of Ireland and of Scotland are treated in the same way?—Is that a duty, or have they any rules as to searching for these derelicts ? 57. Most decidedly. I want to ask you if you know that immediately they hear of a derelict the lighthouse authorities for years past have sent their vessels out with a view of searching for them and removing them? -I am very glad to hear it; I did not know it. 58. In this Trinity House return we have got actually 39 cases in which they have gone out perhaps twice, and searched for them, and nothing has been found. Do you know that practically what the Americans are doing now has been done on our coast for years and years past, and are you aware that the only derelict reported in the pilot chart as having been actually picked up at sea by a Government vessel was a vessel laden with timber, and that when she destroyed this single derelict she released a large number of dangerous articles; and scattered them about to create more danger than the derelict would have created herself ?I doubt that very much about creating more danger. She released a certain amount of wooden logs and a vessel coming against a wooden log very seldom comes against it end on. She is sure to flange off and pass by without doing any harm. In my view they would not be a source of great danger, otherwise than with regard to getting under the screws of vessels, which is a danger certainly. 59. The releasing of logs of wood is a very important matter we find in connexion with these derelicts and destroying them. In a return that has been got out at the Board of Trade within the last three years there have been 103 casualties to British ships attributed -not really attributable, perhaps, because some may be wrong to floating wrecks or wreckage, and out of those 103 only seven have struck derelicts-actual floating vessels either bottom up or floating right side up ?What happened to those seven, might I ask? 60. These cases are stated to have been due to striking a vessel. None was lost and none was seriously damaged. Ninety-six casualties are stated to have been due to striking wreckage, such as logs of timber and spars, and of these two small coasting vessels were lost; therefore, do you not think that we shall have to consider whether a timber-laden vessel should be broken up or not?-Should be broken up. 61. Should be broken up and her timbers released? -Her timber might be burnt up at once; they might pour petroleum oil on it to burn it up at once, and stay alongside it until it is burnt. 62. But my chief point was that you were unaware of what we have been doing on our own coasts ?—Yes, it is news to me, but I am very glad to hear it. 63. You have not analysed the wrecks marked on the pilot charts, I suppose, sufficiently to see that many of the derelicts are merely logs of wood on the American coast, and they would be numbered there as derelicts, but now we are defining a derelict not as a log of wood, but as an actual vessel ?-Just so. 64. That will alter the statistics that have been put before the public in connexion with the United States' charts P-Yes. 65. Do you know if anyone has examined it with that view ?-The whole thing is quite new. I expect it will be examined in future. 66. (Mr. Trevor.) Sir George Nares' last question leads me to ask you, what I was anxious to do, how would you define a floating derelict P-I would define a floating derelict as what had been or is a ship, or the principal part of a ship, abandoned. 67. And you would not include in that definition a single spar or a single floating deal of timber?-I would scarcely call that a derelict, but certainly if it was encountered it should be destroyed. 68. Destroyed--would not that be rather difficult with a floating spar?-ì do not think so. It could be grappled. It is a floating spar; it could be easily grappled and hauled up. 69. Referring to the question you asked in Parliament on the 30th of last month, might I ask from whom you got your information in the case of the "Larne." Do you adopt the information given in respect of that vessel?-Yes. I got it from an authentic source, but I would prefer not to mention it. 70. In this case, as stated in the answer to the question that was given to you in Parliament, we have the deposition of the master of the vessel, who being duly sworn deposed as follows: That he was the master of the steamship Larne," and then he gives particulars of the voyage, and to the usual question that is asked him by coastguards or Customs' officials, or whoever it is who asks, he answers that in his opinion the cause of the casualty was "probably the striking of a floating spar." Now, from your definition, I suppose you would hardly call this a collision with a derelict ?Not a derelict. My definition was that a derelict was a portion of a ship. 66 66 71. But in your question-of course it is three weeks ago nearly-you asked whether we were aware that the vessel was smashed by a floating derelict"?—Yes, that was the question. Upon inquiry I got the captain's statement, the same as you have got there, and if it is not to be published, I will give you the name of gentleman who gave me the information. 72. If you would rather withhold it I do not mind? --I have not got his leave for it, that is all. 73. You have told us that the information has always been given to you, and I do not think, unless the Chairman wishes it, that the name need be given. (Chairman.) No (The witness.) It is a well-known gentleman Cabinet rank. of 74. Then there is one question more. You said that you preferred Great Britain moving in this matter if possible without the concurrence of other countries?— I would have preferred it. J. C. M.P. 20 April 1894. -76. Then I must have misunderstood your answer. I took it that you were anxious that Great Britain should move in the matter without previously coming to some arrangement with foreign countries ?-She should arrange with foreign countries as to dealing with foreign derelicts. 77. Without an arrangement with foreign countries a British ship could not destroy a South American or North American ship, for example ?-My statement was made on the ground of the report of the Washington Conference meeting of 1887. If other nations think the expense too great and the work too enormous, and decline to join in the matter of expense, it would be much preferable for the English nation to take the whole thing on her own shoulders, inasmuch as she has got more of the commerce of the world than all the rest of the world put together Therefore, it is to her interest to do whatever should be done on being allowed to blow up ships of other nations on the high seas, as well as her own, and I think other nations would be pleased to allow it. 78. But you agree that it could not be done without their concurrence-the objection is not on the ground of expense; they might agree to go to the expense of it, but their concurrence in the act of destruction would be necessary?-I candidly confess I am not so well up in international law as to know whether the English or any other nation would have the right to blow up any foreign ship in those circumstances. 79. I doubt very much whether we could do it without their concurrence?—That is a point. 80. Then the only other question I have to ask is, have you communicated with Lloyd's as to your Bill that is down for Second Reading to-night?—Yes. 81, Do Lloyd's agree ?-They agree., 82. They accept the responsibility?—Yes. 83. (Sir Courtenay Boyle.) Have you got any evidence to satisfy yourself as to the nature of the derelicts; is it not the case that a large number of them are timber ships P-I think the greater proportion of them are timber ships. 84. What are the physical steps that you would take to do what you call destroy a timber ship?--I would go alongside of it with a vessel, and I suppose it would be possible to pump out some of the water; and to pour petroleum or other inflammable stuff into her bottom in order to set it on fire. 85. Do you think it would burn?-I am not an authority on the subject so as to be able to say whether it would or not. 86. We are anxious to get your views on the matter, and to see what you really would do; would you burn it ?-Burn it. 87. You would not blow it up, but burn it ?—I would burn it. 88. You think it would burn ?-I think the scientific advances of the nineteenth contury are such that you could find means to sink it some way or another. 89. With regard to the Bill; the Bill would operate in this way, as I understand it, that the master of a ship or the captain of a ship coming across what he believes to be a derelict, would communicate with Lloyd's as to the position in which that derelict was; how long afterwards would that information reach Lloyd's?-He might communicate with Lloyd's agent, and there might be arrangements made with Lloyd's agents to have that information telegraphed immediately to Lloyd's. 90. Even so, in what time would the information reach Lloyd's ?-Next day I should think. 91. Within 12 hours ?- Within 12 hours. 92. And that information would then be how treated? -Immediately furnished to the Board of Trade. 93. And the Board of Trade would then do what?The Board of Trade, I should hope, would immediately give information to all under its control-to all English ports. 94. To all ports ?-To all ports. 97. That is 12 hours more ?-12 hours more. 98. What would be the difference in the position of the derelict by that time ?-The probability is that the derelict would be found in the Gulf Stream, floating so many miles an hour in a certain direction, which might be calculated. 99. A captain sighting a derelict would be able to ascertain, you think, what was the tendency of the current in the water at that particular moment, and would be able to estimate where she was going?-Not the captain, but the Hydrographers here and at Washington have studied the currents so well that they could fix within a few miles where the derelict might be. 100. Five or six hours afterwards?—Yes. 101. Then as regards the operation of destroying it: what is the suggestion that you put forward to the Committee: that there should be a certain number of vessels told off to do what?-A certain number of vessels told off which were specially fitted for it, I would suggest, on account of the difficulty of carrying coals-vessels of a peculiar construction to carry as much coal as possible, but not necessarily always to use it, but adapted to go over certain tracks, and I would suggest that the men should receive training in looking out for these derelicts, and when they found them they should go alongside and stick to them until they destroyed them with the best means in their power. 102. Considering the area of the Atlantic, how many vessels do you think it would take to make any effective search P-I should think that with the commerce we have on the Atlantic we ought to have a good number of vessels. But I will be content as far as my action in the matter goes if the British Government will simply have two for the present. 103. How many derelicts have you estimated at all that two vessels told off to search the Atlantic would find in crossing it ?—I think two vessels off the coast of the Atlantic ought to find, judging by the number of derelicts that have been reported, at least half a dozen. 104. You think half a dozen each ?-Yes, that would be 12 altogether. 105. Have you ascertained that probably the highest estimate received yet of the number of derelicts in the Atlantic is about 23 P--But if you have got 12 out of 23 you do very well. 106. And do you think that two vessels would find a little more than half the whole number-12 out of 23 ? --A vessel going out with that special object in view, and especially if they adopted that plan I suggest of laying by at night with an electric light from the mainmast, all the rest of the vessels knowing that she was a derelict searcher would go out of their way to give information. 107. Have you no other suggestion as to destroying them than that of burning them?-I have. You mentioned the case of timber ships, but iron vessels very often have the keel upwards, but they could be blown up. 108. Have you satisfied yourself of any instance of an iron vessel floating ?-Yes, there is that case of the vessel at Glasgow, and there was a case off the west coast of Ireland, and one of my own questions referred to it before the House of Commons. In that case she was seen with her keel upwards floating about, and a vessel in that position would be worse than any rock for a seagoing vessel going upon it, and if the captain of a vessel heard of that, and knew that they would be likely to come into contact with it, they would provide accordingly. In such cases the vessel should be discovered and never left till destroyed. 109. (Captain Wharton.) May we take it that the justification of the adoption of any measure that involves money is the amount of danger existing, or in other words the frequency with which derelicts are fallen in with ?—Yes. 110. What sort of percentage should you consider would justify us in spending any money-how many ships sunk per annum-I would not go by the number of derelicts that have been found. I take it in connexion with the number of derelicts that we assume or the number of vessels that we know to have been lost, and of which no report has ever been given. Although they may have come to be destroyed by running upon an iceberg or anything else, yet I assume they are derelicts for the sake of argument. Now, put against that the number of passengers that travel from England to America every year, and every week the total is something enormous. Going back to the history of the past passenger trade, we know that several passenger steamers have been enormously crowded, and have been lost. Take the case of the "City of Boston," and of a lot of vessels that we have never heard of, and of all those people that have gone down in them and been lost- dead men tell no tales. In calculating what we should do, we should remember that traffic on the ocean is increasing every year. The passenger service between England and America is increasing enormously, and if one vessel only runs on a derelict and is destroyed the thousands of pounds that might be spent by the English Government in looking after its own people are surely well spent in saving one ship in 20 years, say, if you like. I will put it in that way, that is the extreme way of putting it. 111. But, even with that argument, you admit that the amount of money should bear some proportion to the object on which it is spent. Supposing it cost 10 millions a year to do it, would you consider the country would be justified in spending that sum if it was proved that one vessel was lost within the last 10 years ?—That is a very extreme way of putting it, 10 millions for the sake of one ship, but I think the money element should largely and liberally enter into the calculation. 112. But will you not allow that we must have some evidence first on the subject. You say you assume that these vessels are destroyed by derelicts ?—Yes. 113. Would not it be better if you could get some direct evidence, so as to make the case much stronger? —Of course, if you could. 114. You mentioned many steamers as having been lost, and large vessels, but do you know of any large vessel that you believe even to have been lost by coming into contact with derelicts ?-I mentioned the case of the "City of Boston." 115. Can you tell us of any other ?-The "Naronic." That was not a passenger ship, but was built for cargo, yet she had a good number of passengers on board. 116. Do you consider that she was wrecked by a derelict ? Certainly; and that is the opinion of the Chamber of Commerce of Belfast where she was built. 117. Do you know that the "Naronic" crossed the Atlantic in February 1893 ?—Yes. 118. Do you know that in her track there was a large field of ice 300 miles long which she had to pass through P-That is the previous journey. 119. No, that was the same journey?-She had nine journeys. 120. She was on her seventh voyage, but I mean, when lost, there was in her track a very large amount of ice at the time she was lost ?--I believe there was. 121. In that case, there were several hundreds of miles of sea covered with ice, and why do you assume she ran on a small speck like a derelict, rather than on a large mass of ice?-Because the navigation on board these American steamers is so good, and the commanding officers so able and clever, and the lookout so well kept, especially on the passenger steamers, that they can always tell the near approach of ice almost to a certainty. 122. Do you know that of your own knowledge ?— I bave often been on the look out, and I have watched and seen the men at it, and I have crossed over the Atlantic many times. 123. How are they to see a piece of ice floating level with the water ?-They do not see it except in the daytime. They would see a dark thing on the water, but they feel the ice first-they feel the change in the atmosphere. 124. That is a question that has been very closely and largely gone into P-It is a technical question, and those in authority like Sir George Nares understand the matter much better, and can give an opinion. But I have crossed the Atlantic several times, and the feeling of all the navigators I have ever been with is that they dread running on a derelict much more than the prospect of running upon ice. 66 66 16 66 66 • 66 6 66 6 125. Did you ever see this telegram from New York of March 30th, "Bottle picked up, New York, March $ 30th. The Sun's' Norfolk correspondent' 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 snow. 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." Do you still think the "Naronic" was lost by collision with a derelict?→→→ In answer to that I would simply say that those who have travelled much at sea, especially on the passenger steamers between New York and Liverpool, know that amongst silly fools it is a very absurd way of practical joking to send messages in bottles, throwing them overboard. When that report appeared it was classified as a practical joke. When a vessel is known to have gone down there are many silly fools who do that sort of thing who really ought to be punished if one could punish them for playing practical jokes of that sort. 1 have seen it done on board steamers on the way to America, and it is a lamentable thing. I hope it is not true in this case, but it is known to be frequently done. 66 126. But still you think it is more likely she was struck by a derelict which we do not know to have existed, than that she struck on the ice, of which there were thousands of square miles PI believe so myself, and I believe the people in Belfast believed so, where she was built, as well as the Chamber of Commerce. I do not know the ground they have, except that people on board these steamers are always on the look out for ice, but they cannot guard against a derelict. 127. As sailors we cannot agree with you, because there is nothing to warn one of the approach of ice there at all? I was startled to hear Sir George Nares' observation to that effect. 128. I have had a great deal of experience, and from observations that have been taken, I can assure you that the fall in temperature is absolutely no guide at all to the approach of ice. 1 tell you that of my absolute knowledge. I have paid a great deal of attention to the case, and it is a thing we used to teach our young officers, that the approach of ice might be so found out, but the theory was founded upon entirely erroneous statements, and there has been such a mass of evidence to the contrary, that we cannot accept it for one moment. Then, with regard to your proposition about the marking of derelicts, and informing people of derelicts, how do you propose that should be made use of by sailors. Supposing that a sailor knows a derelict is in a certain latitude and longitude, what do you think he will do ?-If we had this searching ship, and if the sailor happened to come across it at night, it would be his duty to report it. 129. I mean the vessel sailing. The Board of Trade telegraph to Liverpool, saying when a derelict has been seen in the Atlantic, and so on, and a vessel sails next day. What would he do if he knows there is a derelict there?—It would be the duty of the Board of Trade to tell him where that derelict would be likely to be, and then when he gets there he would use extra caution. That is all he could do. 130. He would keep a sharper look out an usual ?--Yes. 131. That is the sole thing he could do?-That is the sole thing he could do under the circumstances. 132. If you told the look-out every night that he was to keep a sharp look out because there might be a derelict within 100 miles, do not you think it would get. rather monotonous after a time ?-I do not think it would do any harm to keep a sharp look out. 133. Your experience of sailors leads you to believe that they would keep a sharper look out at night than usual under those circumstances ?—I think it would be very advisable to keep a sharp look out if there is a chance of falling in with a derelict, even if there is no certainty. 134. Of course it would be, but the vessels go so fast now-a-days, that if you do not report a vossel ahead, in an instant you may have a collision, and how can a J..C. -. 20 Apr 1894. J. C. Macdona, M.P. man look out any better than he does now ?-If you believe what sailors tell you they look out very badly now on sailing ships. 135. You think the mere fact of telling them to look 20 April 1894. out for a derelict, rather than for anything else, would make them look out more sharply ?-Yes, I believe it would. People dread the unseen and the unknown more than anything else. 136. That is the only precaution that they could take to avoid them ?-It is part of it. 137. Do you know whether the Cunard ships, which have traversed the Atlantic longer than any other line, have often seen derelicts. Have you any evidence to show from them the great danger which these derelicts are ?-I know that the officers of the Cunard steamers signed the petition to the Board of Trade. I know that much, but I do not know that they saw any more than anybody else. They take a different route from any other line of steamers. 138. Should you be astonished to hear that in all the years the Cunard vessels have traversed the Atlantic, as far as the Company make out, there have only been six or seven cases in the whole years of their travelling. You understand what I am driving at-it is the question of frequency ?-I quite understand. 139. My view is that we are not justified in doing anything unless the danger is great. You are quite right to assume on your side that the danger is great, and that all these ships are lost by derelicts, but do not you think the Government should ascertain, as far as they can, whether that is so or not ?-Yes, quite so. 66 66 66 140. This is a letter from the manager of the Cunard Company on that subject: "The Cunard Steamship Company, Limited, General Manager's Office, 8, Water Street, Liverpool, April 16th, 1894"Dear sir: We shall be most happy to facilitate the object of your chairman and his committtee, but I am really at a loss whom to send. The writer has "been watching the various ship's reports for the last "decade for any derelicts reported on the North "Atlantic route, and though any information of such "is usually exchanged between the principals of the "various lines, he does not remember more than two "" or three derelicts in the whole of that time, and is of "opinion that none of our masters, even those that "have been crossing for 30 years, have seen more "than half a dozen in the whole course of their experience. It would therefore seem purposeless sending a representative to say so little; but if you "think otherwise, I am entirely at your service to "send one of our captains to give his experience." That is signed by the general manager ?-Might not that arise from the fact that the Cunard steamers invariably take a more southern route than any other line. 66 46 141. Then the derelicts always go in one line, do you mean?-No; but if there is greater traffic in one line than in another there is more likely to be collisions with derelicts there than in another line which is not so much frequented. 142. You mentioned just now, I think, in your remarks that the "Kearsage" had been hoist by her own petard; that is to say she had run upon a derelict? —I was under that impression. 143. Do you know that the captain has been sentenced by court-martial for neglect of duty for the wrecking of his vessel on a well-known reef in the Carribean Sea P--Then I withdraw what I said. I was not sure. 144. You have said that the Americans for many years bave been taking steps to destroy wrecks. Can you tell us for how many years ?-Three years nearly. 145. You have that information ?-Yes. 146. What does that information rest upon-as to the three years where do you get that from ?—I have got that from Mr. Jaffe. 147. I can tell you my information is that the first action on the part of the United States was in June, 1893 ?-Not before then? 148. Not before then. 149. (Sir George Nares.) And then it was on their own coast. 150. (Captain Wharton.) The "Kearsage" was sent on a short cruise and then wrecked. The other vessel, the "Vesuvius" was a ship which had not gone at all except to destroy wrecks along the shore, which as Sir George Nares has pointed out, has been done in this country under Act of Parliament for many many years, so that now you can relieve your mind on the point of this country being behindhand. We have done for many years what the United States have done for one year?-Not only should we not be behindhand, but we should be very much to the fore in that matter. I am very glad to hear we are not behind, for I certainly thought we were. 151. There was a question asked in the House of Commons in which you mentioned that there were 400 derelicts ?-That is wrong. It is a misprint that originated in Washington. It was a misprint of 400 for 40. 152. (Sir George Nares.) Have you seen the Pilot Chart issued for April ?-No, I have not. 153. It appears by that Chart that there are only six derelicts that are at all near the line between the English Channel and New York, and that out of those six, three were reported in February. Now what I am aiming at is to know whether you have any information as to the life of a derelict-how long she floats-besides those long drifts that you have told us about ?—That is the only information I have. In the matter of a wooden ship, some "Black Ball" line of Australian ships are afloat now I am told, travelling up and down, and if they become derelict, they last an interminable time. Nothing will sink them, because they are old timber ships, so there is nothing to prevent an old timber ship living for 50 years if undisturbed. 154. As far as the United States information goes, there are only six derelict vessels, and four of them have not been seen since February, and therefore may we not take it that most of these have sunk by this time? --I hope so; but I do not know that we have any reason to take it that they have sunk. 155. They have withdrawn from the Chart all vessels that have been sighted previously so that I suppose we may take it that the United States Hydrographe: considers that all the others previously reported, but not met with lately have gone to the bottom ?-There is one question that will influence this subject of derelicts very much, that is that we are building less wooden ships now every year, and there ought to be less derelicts. The witness withdrew. Mr. O. Jaffe, 20 April 1894. Mr. OTTO JAFFE called and examined. 156. (Chairman.) You are a member of the Belfast Chamber of Commerce, are you not?-Yes. 157. And a shipowner ?-A shipowner. 158. Will you give us any information that you possess that will assist the Committee in carrying out their inquiry into the danger to navigation arising from floating derelicts ?--I have very little information on the subject, except as to the time when the "Horn"head," a Belfast owned steamer, and the Naronic," a steamer built in Belfast, were both lost without leaving any trace whatever, and it was presumed they struck a derelict. Some week previous to the 16th of November, when I introduced this subject to the 66 Chamber of Commerce, I had seen some notice in a paper--I am not able to give the name of it—that the United States were taking steps to destroy derelics, and I thought that the British Government might see their way to join. That was the origin of my bringing the subject before the Chamber of Commerce, and it was gradually taken up by one Chamber of Commerce and another. Mr. Macdona interested himself in the subject before I did. I saw in the month of July a notice of his having done so. I myself struck a derelict some 20 years ago as passenger on board a steamer, at least it was presumed to be a derelict. It was at night time. I was reading in the saloon, and I felt most distinctly the shock we got and the grating noise, and at the same moment our propeller was gone. 159. (Mr. Trevor.) Was that in the Atlantic ?--In the Atlantic, about 600 miles from Queenstown. 160. (Chairman.) What was the name of the steamer? -The "Celtic," one of the White Star Line of steamers. 161. We have bere a long list of damage to ships, but where has this information come from? You have sent it, I believe?—No, the Navy Department have. The Board of Trade records I have got here from the Navy Department at the Hydrographic Office in Washington of the 4th of December 1893. 66 66 162. Will you read that ?" Navy Department, "Bureau of Navigation, Hydrographic Office, Washington, D.C., December 4th 1893. Sir: In reply to your letter of November 22nd requesting full par"ticulars relative to the statements made by you at "the meeting of the Belfast Chamber of Commerce in "the matter of derelicts, this office can substantiate your statements excepting in respect to the number "of derelicts charted and afloat on the edge of the "Gulf Stream between Cape Hatteras and the Great "Banks of Newfoundland.' When I introduced the subject, through a misunderstanding of a report of a captain I made a statement that 400 derelicts were met with between Cape Hatteras and the Banks of Newfoundland, and I was anxious to get that statement confirmed by the Hydrographic Office, as it was presumed that the statement was made by this captain at the Hydrographic Office, and it appears that it is not 400 reports of derelicts, but 400 weather reports that daily come into the Hydrographic Office, and this that I am reading is in answer to my inquiry whether I was right or not. Now they give the real substance of the matter. "During the five years from 1887 to "1891 the number of derelicts, wrecks, &c., charted on the Pilot chart was 957, of which 332 had their drift 66 66 66 vicinity was 14. In regard to collisions with derelicts, this office has a record of 38 collisions during "the years cited-an average of nearly eight annually. "Lumber laden derelicts remain afloat longer than any "other class. But two cases of iron derelicts remaining afloat for any great length of time are on record in this office. One is the coal-laden iron ship' Ada Iredale'; she was on fire from a spontaneous combustion of her cargo of coal, and was abandoned on "October 15, 1876, in Lat. 13° 30' S., Long. 107° 45' " W.; she was towed into Papeete, Society Islands, "June 9, 1877. Her drift was 2,423 miles. She was repaired, and is now in service as the bark Annie "Johnson.' The other is the coal-laden iron ship "Oriflamme' abandoned on fire June 18, 1881, in "Lat. 18° 12′ S., Long. 92° 42′ W., she drifted ashore on Raroria Island, Low Archipelago, February 12, 1882, after drifting 2840 miles." I believe these letters have been published. 66 66 68 (Chairman.) Yes, we have got a copy here in the Liverpool Journal of Commerce. 163. (Mr. Trevor.) Who is the letter from?-From the Hydrographic Office-from Mr. Sigsbee, Commander of the United States Navy and Hydrographer, and it is addressed to myself. 66 66 6 164. (Chairman.) Can you tell me from whom the Hydrographer gets his information ?-I do not know if the whole letter is published. It goes on: "Vessels of "the United States have been employed occasionally" -I suppose that paragraph is not published-" have "been employed occasionally during the past five years in destroying and removing wrecks and derelicts; 36 have been destroyed or removed since 1887. Recently the Kearsage,' 'Vesuvius,' and 'Fern' have been active in destroying wrecks, complaints from shipping companies having been very urgent. The last dangerous wreck destroyed was by the Kearsage,' namely, the John Holland,' off Cape Henry, Virginia, on November 3, 1893. The San Francisco' also destroyed one. Recent pilot charts have contained sufficiently full particulars of these operations. Although it has been the practice to assign naval vessels to destroy wrecks and derelicts, when 66 66 66 tary weather observers. Our observers report to the "branch offices all wrecks and derelicts sighted. The reports are forwarded daily to the main office and special cases are immediately reported to the Secre "tary of the Navy by the Hydrographer. If the case "is deemed urgent operations are begun against the "wreck by telegraphic orders. This office receives daily an average of over 400 meteorological reports "of the North Atlantic from co-operative voluntary observers." Those are captains and 1st and 2nd offi cers, mostly of steamers, and mostly of British steamers, as the majority of the traffic is done by British ships: "With these reports sent in daily from the branch "offices come special reports of wrecks and derelicts sighted as reported by our voluntary observers and as extracted from newspapers wherever available. Although our observers constitute a very efficient patrol of the tracks most frequented, without doubt "there are many derelicts afloat that are never reported. It is regretted that the list of cable words "sent by you with your letter of November 22nd does not cover the state of the case, as I have reported in "this letter; that is to say, the Office could not cable "that there were not 400 derelicts from Hatteras to "the banks of Newfoundland, but that the Kearsage' "had been cruising. In addition to the Pilot Chart "this Office publishes a weekly bulletin of matter for "which there is not sufficient room on the Pilot Chart. "The Bulletin contains a list of wrecks and derelicts reported. The spirit shown by our body of voluntary "observers, which includes mariners of all nations, is "most admirable. There seems to be no trouble "within the bounds of reason that they will not willingly undertake in behalf of this Office. They appreciate the fact that our work is co-operative in "its character; that a report sent in by each indi "vidual is compared with the reports from other sources, and that all which is directly valuable is sent out again for the general benefit. There is sent you to-day a copy of the Hydrographer's Annual Report for each of the years 1891, 1892, and 1893. "There was also sent you on November 27th one copy "of the Pilot Chart for each month of June, July, August, and September, three copies of the October "and November Pilot Charts, three copies of the Supplement to the November number, three copies "of the Wreck Chart, and one copy each of the Weekly Bulletin for the month of November. Thanking you for your interest, and wishing you " and the Chamber of Commerce of Belfast success in your undertaking to bring the matter of wrecks and "derelicts to the favourable attention of the British "Government,—I am, yours respectfully, C. D. SIGSBEE, Commander, U.S. Navy, Hydrographer." 66 66 66 66 166. Have you much personal knowledge of the navigation to America?-No, except as a passenger I would not consider I had. 167. Do reports that reach you confirm what the Hydrographer says?-I have got here the report of the "Cragside." That is one of the last ships that is presumed to have struck a derelict. 168. But we should know as accurately as possible the details of the striking, and what sort of derelict it was. Does it give that ?—No, it struck her going from Boston to Montreal. 66 66 66 66 66 66 169. That was practically in territorial water, or almost so?-In Canadian waters. I do not know the light sufficiently. It says in the protest "On the 19th when Green Island light country harbour in the county of Guysborough Province of Nova Scotia was sighted at a distance of about nine miles on port bow, the ship at the time steering an cast by north course. They continued on this course until Green Island' light bore north five miles distant as wag carefully ascertained by taking four points bearings. "The course was then altered to east by south, and they proceeded on weather being fine except a hazy atmosphere and a heavy sea running on to the shore. "The horizon, however, could be clearly seen a distance "of from two to three miles. At 11 p.m. Green Island "light disappeared. About midnight they sighted "Whitehead, the light being nearly north-east, aud "from six to seven miles distant. At this tire ship was steaming at full speed, and still steering east by 66 66 66 |