Page 183 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 23 - 26
P. 183
Rule? The Attorney-General: Some do, apparently. The “Brighton Queen” is an excursion steamer. Evidently there are some excursion steamers - quite a number. If your Lordship would like it can be classified by those who can turn up the particulars of each ship, but it is obvious that a number of them are cross-Channel steamers, and therefore do not really come within the class of ship we are dealing with as passenger or emigrant ships. How many there are I cannot say. The Commissioner: Perhaps you can supplement that list which you have with some particulars of the boats and vessels in it so that we may see what the character of the vessel is? The Attorney-General: That is what I am proposing to do. (The Witness withdrew.) Mr. GUGLIELMO MARCONI, Sworn. Examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL. 24850. Mr. Marconi, you are the inventor of your system of wireless telegraphy? - Yes. 24851. I want to go at once to the date of the year when the first installation of wireless telegraphy was fitted on a large liner. Was that the “Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse”? - Yes, in 1900. 24852. That is a North-German Lloyd boat? - It belongs to the North-German Lloyd Company. 24853. And in the following year, 1901, wireless equipments were fitted to the “Lucania,” the “Campania,” and a number of other vessels? - Yes. 24854. The exact number is immaterial. Has there been a form of agreement between your Company and shipowners which was arrived at in the early stages of your system of wireless telegraphy, and which is practically still adhered to? - Yes. 24855. In substance? - In substance, it is practically the same as the original agreement which was drawn up at the commencement of the business. 24856. Your Lordship has had the agreement produced to you with this Company in respect of this vessel. I want to ask you just a few questions about your regulations with regard to signals of distress. Circular 57, I think, is the first one which in the form of a circular deals with this. I have the documents, but I propose to summarise them so as to save encumbering the case with more documents. CQ, as I understand it - you will correct me if it is wrong in summarising the effect of this document - is a call which means “all stations”? - Yes. 24857. And then the signal CQD is, or was, at any rate, the distress signal that is to be used? - Yes, the distress signal. 24858. On and after the 1st February, 1904, was the call to be given by ships in distress or requiring assistance, CQD? - Yes, CQD. 24859. And, according to the Regulations, that signal must not be given except by order of the Captain of the ship in distress - is that right? - Yes, that is right. 24860. Or by other vessels retransmitting the signals which they have received on account of the ship in distress? - Exactly. 24861. According to your Regulations I see all stations must recognise the urgency of this call and make every effort to establish satisfactory communication with the least possible delay? - Yes. 24862. Then you have another Regulation - it is Circular 102 - which provides for the possibility of a signal of distress being given by ships fitted with other systems of wireless telegraphy? - Yes. 24863. And are your instructions that, “should such signals be received equal attention shall be
   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188