Page 140 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 19 - 22

verbal of the answers. The Attorney-General: Is not that something more? Your Lordship sees the difference. In the one case it is a mere acknowledgment; in the other it is: “Thanks for your message and good wishes; have had fine weather since leaving.” That is the “Baltic” message. The Commissioner: Yes, I know it is, and it appears to me to be substantially the same as this. The Attorney-General: Oh, no. The Commissioner: What is the difference - “Had fine weather since leaving.” 22043. (The Attorney-General.) Certainly, that is not the same as “Received, thanks.” It is something more than merely receiving the acknowledgment. (To the Witness.) Is this right? Is “Rd. Tks.” anything more than an acknowledgment? - No, that is a contraction for “Received, thanks.” The Commissioner: Take the “Empress of Britain.” There is an answer there: “Many thanks for your kind message from all here.” The Attorney-General: Supposing instead of “Rd. Tks.” you had received in answer to that message: “Thanks for your message and good wishes, had fine weather since leaving,” what would you have done? - I would have done nothing unless it was an official message from the Captain. 22043a. (The Commissioner.) It is signed “Smith.” Does that make any difference? - If the Captain authorises the Marconi operator to reply I should have put it on the official message. 22043b. (The Attorney-General.) If the Captain of your vessel authorised you to reply to the message from the Captain of the “Titanic” you would then have put it on? - Yes, an official form. 22044. (The Commissioner.) But if he did not authorise you, you would take no notice of it? - Because it was not sent as an official message. 22045. Except to fill up the form relating to your original despatch? - That is so. The Commissioner: I do not know that it matters at present. Mr. Attorney, I am by no means satisfied that the “Mesaba’s” message was ever delivered on the bridge. The Attorney-General: Your Lordship remembers we had some little discussion about that, and I stated then the result of the enquiries made and the information we had obtained. We can take it no further. We said then we would call him in order to satisfy the Court, but we can get no further than that. This gentleman says it was sent, and he received an acknowledgment from the operator on the ship. The Commissioner: At present I have very little doubt that the message was sent. The Attorney-General: We cannot take it further because we have not got the message from Captain Smith, which would show that he had received it. That is how it stands. Your Lordship is right about that. Examined by Sir ROBERT FINLAY. 22046. I think you made a statement, did not you, on getting to this country? - I did. 22047. Is that the statement; is that your writing? (The document was handed to the Witness.) - Yes, it is. 22048. It was made, I think, to the owners of the ship? - To the shore captain at the Royal Albert Docks. 22049. Of your company? - Yes. 22050. This is the statement, my Lord: “Saturday, 8th June, 1912. I hereby state that on Sunday, 14th April, I had communication with s.s. “Titanic,” bound East” - it is written “East” here. Is that right? (The statement was handed to the Witness.) - It should have been “West,” sir - “bound West.”