Page 139 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 19 - 22
P. 139
22025. Before you had in fact transmitted that report, did he give you another report? - He did. 22026. Did you then place the two reports together? - Yes, on one message form. 22027. Do you remember what the second report was? - No, Sir; it was in relation to ice. 22028. So that you had got these two ice reports which he had given you in writing which you incorporated into one message which you then transmitted? - Yes. 22029. Do you recollect transmitting it to the “Titanic”? - I do. 22030. Have you got your procès-verbal before you? - Yes. 22031. I think if you look at that you will see that you transmitted it at 7.50 p.m. If your Lordship happens to have the document that I gave you containing a collection of messages received and sent, your Lordship will find that message on page 3: “Office sent to M.G.Y.,” that is the “Titanic”? - Yes. 22032. “Time sent 7.50 p.m.” That, I understand, is New York time? - Yes. 22033. “By whom sent, S.H.A.” That is you? - Yes, my initials. 22034. “‘Mesaba’ Office, 14th April, 1912. - Prefix Ice Report. From ‘Mesaba’ to ‘Titanic.’ In latitude 42 N. to 41.25, longitude 49 W. to longitude 50.30 W., saw much heavy pack ice and great number large icebergs, also field ice, weather good, clear.” I need not ask you in detail about your recollection, but did you get an acknowledgment from the “Titanic”? - Yes. 22035. Have you got it on your procès-verbal? - The acknowledgment? 22036. Yes? - No, it is on the original message itself. 22037. You have looked at the original message, and it has it on, has it? - Yes. Sir Robert Finlay: Has what? The Attorney-General: The acknowledgment by the “Titanic” of the receipt of this message. Sir Robert Finlay: Have you got it here? The Commissioner: No acknowledgment is copied on this. 22038. (The Attorney-General.) No; your Lordship will see why. (To the Witness.) Will you just let me look at it for one moment? (The document was handed to the learned Attorney- General.) Here is the original message. I do not quite follow what it is; perhaps you will explain it to us. You say that that enables you to say that the “Titanic” had received it? - I sent this message, and the “Titanic” sent: “Received, thanks.” If I had not received that acknowledgment I should not have put the office I had sent it to, the time, and my signature. As soon as I received the official received signal I timed it, dated it, put the office sent to, and initialled it. 22039. I think I understand it now. Is it your practice, first of all, to do this: You send the message first of all, and then this part in the column: “Office sent to, time sent and by whom sent,” if I follow you correctly, is not filled up, is it? - No, not until I get the received acknowledgment. 22040. Then when you get an acknowledgment you know that you have transmitted the message to the designated ship? - That is quite right. 22041. And when you have that you fill in that you have sent it and the time and your initials so as to show that you have sent it? - Yes. 22042. And what you get then is “Rd Tks”? - Yes. The Commissioner: Is this system of keeping the procès-verbal the same as the system on the “Baltic”? The Attorney-General: I do not know; we will see. The Commissioner: Because the “Baltic” apparently enters on the procès-verbal the answer. The Attorney-General: But this is not the procès-verbal that we are dealing with. This is the original message. The Commissioner: I know that, but I understand he has no record of the answer. The Attorney-General: No, I understand not. The Commissioner: As I understand it, in the “Baltic” they have a record in their procès-
   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144