Page 86 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 32 - 36
P. 86
Mr. Dunlop: No, and it would be unfair to approach them. The Commissioner: I do not agree with you about being unfair at all, but I do agree to this, that if she knew what you were about she would not be likely to help you. Mr. Dunlop: No, my Lord, and we could not have asked them without telling them what our object was. The Commissioner: At all events you have not attempted to get any information from her. Mr. Dunlop: No, my Lord, because I have found from the “Index” this information, and when I found it from reading this through one evening with that chart before me, I put the marks on the chart which your Lordship has before you now. So much for the “Trautenfels.” The Attorney-General: I think I ought to tell your Lordship - I did not know it till this moment - that we have been making some inquiries with reference to it. There is a reference to the “Trautenfels” in consequence of the funnels - the colour of the funnels and description - we traced that it might be one of the Hansa line, and we have been in communication about it to see if we could ascertain. The letter that I have is from the Treasury Department of the United States Customs Service at the Port of Boston, to which the “Trautenfels” was bound, a letter of the 23rd May. I will read it so that your Lordship may have such information as we have got. The Commissioner: Would you like to have it read? Mr. Dunlop: Oh, yes. The Commissioner: I think perhaps it had better be read. The Attorney-General: We have made a great number of enquiries for the purpose of ascertaining if we can find out what the vessels were. The Commissioner: What question is expressly directed to the conduct of the “Californian”? The Attorney-General: Well, I think it is 24. Mr. Dunlop: It is wide enough to cover the “Trautenfels.” The Commissioner: That is not the one. The Attorney-General: It is the one that covers the “Californian”; that is, if your Lordship has the amended question. The Commissioner: I am afraid I have not. The Attorney-General: I amended it so as to include the “Californian.” The Commissioner: What was the amendment? The Attorney-General: “What vessels had an opportunity of rendering assistance to the ‘Titanic,’ and, if any, how was it that assistance did not reach the ‘Titanic’ before the ‘Carpathia’ arrived?” It is the second of those two questions that really is the material one. I do not think the first is material at all. The Commissioner: What is the second? The Attorney-General: The second of those two questions I just read, “How was it that assistance did not reach the ‘Titanic’ before the ‘Carpathia’ arrived?” It was framed for the purpose of meeting this point and putting a question to cover it. The letter is from the Treasury Department, United States Customs Service Boston, to the Commissioner of Navigation at Washington, dated 23rd May, 1912. “In reply to Bureau letter (62052), dated 21st instant, I beg to report that the only steamships known to this office which have a funnel resembling the one described in Bureau letter are those of the Hansa Line. There is an illustration in Part VI. of the list of merchant vessels for 1911. The ‘Trautenfels’ of that line arrived at this port early in the morning on 18th April, and the ‘Lindenfels’ on 20th April. As I am informed that the voyage from the locality mentioned by the Bureau to this port is from three to five days, according to the speed of the steamer, the ‘Trautenfels’ would probably not have been in that locality on 15th April. The steamers of this line do not clear foreign from this port, but proceed to New York with residue of cargo. The s.s. “Inverclyde,’ sailing on the American and Oriental Line arrived 22nd April. I have been unable to obtain a description of her funnel. I
   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91