The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

288 light to the Storstad, which vessel thereupon came to the conclusion that the two ships would pass clear port to port. Then when the fog came the Storstad, still thinking the Empress on her port bow, ported her helm with the idea of giving the Empress more room. "So you contend or suggest," said Lord Mersey, "that neither ship was to blame or that both were to blame?" "I am suggesting," replied Mr. New- combe, "that there was some negligence on both sides. It seems to me that Capt. Kendall took an extraordinary course in stopping and reversing his engines almost in the track of an ap- proaching steamer". : "You think that if he had continued his course in the fog at moderate speed," said Lord Mersey, "he would have passed clear in spite of the Stors- tad's course being deflected?" "Ves", replied Mr. Newcombe. Lord Mersey in a short concluding speech said the board had been much impressed by the ability, the fairness and patience with which counsel on both sides had presented their respective cases. "We must now", said he, "address ourselves to the heavy task of sifting the evidence and considering the argu- ments of counsel. We hope in a fort- night or so to be in a position to make our report." Storstad Held to Blame The court of inquiry rendered its opinion on Saturday, July 11, finding the collier Storstad wholly to blame. "We regret," says the commission's report, "to have to impute blame to any one in connection with this la- mentable disaster, and we should not do so if we felt that any reasonable alternative was left to us. We can, however, come to no other conclusion than that Mr. Tuftenes was wrong and negligent in altering his course in the fog as he undoubtedly did, and that he was wrong and negligent in keeping the navigation of the vessel in his own hands and in failing to call the Captain when he saw the fog coming on. 'Tt is not to be supposed that this disaster was in any way attributable to any special characteristics of the St. Lawrence waterway. It was a disaster which might have occurred in the Thames, in the Clyde, in the Mersey, or elsewhere in similar circumstances. "Such is the conclusion at which we have arrived: on the question as to who was to blame for the disaster. But. the question of much greater public interest and importance remains to be con- sidered, viz.: Why the ship sank so quickly and what steps, if any, can be taken to prevent the terrible conse- THE MARINE REVIEW quences which so often follow such dis- asters? "The main difference between the two stories (of the officers of the Empress and the Storstad respectively) is to be found in the description of the way in which the two vessels were approaching each other at the time the Empress of Ireland changed her course, after hav- ing obtained an offing from Father Point. As the Ships Approached' "The witnesses from the Storstad! say they were approaching so as to pass red to red, while those from the Empress of -Ireland say they were approaching so as to pass green to green. The stories are irreconcilable and we have to determine which is the more prob- able. Times, distances and bearings vary so much, even in the evidence from _ witnesses from the same ship, that it is impossible to rely or to base conclusions upon them. We have, therefore, thought it advisable to found our conclusions almost entirely upon the events spoken to by the witnesses and upon their probable sequence in order to arrive at a solution of the difficulty. "After carefully weighing the evi- dence we have come to the conclusion that Mr. Tuftenes was mistaken if he supposed that there was any intention on the part of the Empress of Ireland to pass port to port, or that she, in fact, by her lights manifested the intention of doing so; but it appears to us to bea mistake which would have been of no consequence if both ships had_ subse- quently kept their courses. "Shortly after the ship came into the position of green to green, as claimed by Capt. Kendall, or red to red, as claimed by Mr. Tuftenes, the fog shut them out from each other, and it is while they were both enveloped in this fog that the course of one or the other was changed, and the collision brought about. From the evidence adducted on behalf of both vessels it is plain that before the. fog, and when they last saw each other, there was no risk of colli- sion if each kept her course. There- fore, the question as to who is to blame resolves itself into a simple issue, namely, which of the ships changed her course during the fog? "With reference to this issue, it will be convenient tq deal with the evidence connected with the Empress of Ireland first. Liner's Course Unchanged "No witness speaks of having seen her make any change of course during the fog, and those who were on board, engaged in her navigation, distinctly deny that any change whatever was made. There is, in our opinion, no August, 1914 ground for saying that the course of the Empress of Ireland was ever changed in the sense that the wheel was willfully moved; but as the hearing proceeded another explanation was pro- pounded, namely, that the vessel changed her course, not by reason of any willful alterations of her wheel, but in consequence of some _ uncontrollable movement which was accounted for at one time on the hypathesis that the steering-gear was out of order, and at another by the theory that having re- gard for the fullness of the sternof the Empress of Ireland the area of the rudder was insufficient. Evidence was called in support of this explanation. It is not necessary to examine this evi- dence in detail. The principal witness on the point as to the steering-gear was a man named Galway, one of the quar- termasters of the Empress of Ireland. "He said that he reported the jamming incident to Williams, the second officer on the bridge, (who was drowned), and to Pilot Bernier. He said he also men- tioned the matter to Quartermaster Murphy, who relieved him at midnight of the disaster. Pilot Bernier and Mur- phy were called, and they denied that Galway had made any complaint what- ever to them about the steering-gear. "Galway gave his evidence badly, and made so unsatisfactory a witness that we cannot rely on his testimony. Some evidence was called, however, to confirm Galway. This was the evidence of three men and the pilot from an- other Norwegian collier called the Al- den, at the time under charter to the Dominion Coal company, who were the charterers of the Storstad. These wit- nesses spoke of having passed the Em- press of Ireland on her way down the river about 9:20 (Montreal time) on the evening of May 28, and they said she was swinging and_ steering badly, changing. jfrom red>.to '@reen.. 'seve eral times. The witnesses do not speak of any behavior of the vessel which would suggest 'jamming', and it is to be believed that the allegation that the vessel sheered from side to side on this occasion is entirely different from the allegation of Galway that the wheel jammed. "On the whole question of the steer- ing gear and rudder we are of opinion, that the allegations as to their condi- tions are not well founded. We have consulted our advisers, and they con- cur in this opinion. "It was said on behalf of the Stor- stad that the order to put the liner full speed astern was probably given be- cause the Empress of Ireland had be- come unmanageable by reason of her defective steering gear. cept this suggestion, but we do think the stopping evidences uneasiness On We cannot ac- ° s A a