Captain Lord and the Court

[John M. Feeney]

I'm left with the impression that either we're missing something, or that something has been deleted from the historical record.

Parks: You mean *other than* the sighting of the rockets and all the other significant observances of that night? -- from the Californian's log.

What would you think was deleted from the historical record, and HOW? (Do you have access to a copy of Reade to refer to for those aftermath discussions? There's a whole chapter on why Lord wasn't prosecuted.)

I'm inclined to think politics had a lot to do with it myself. The Board of Trade had quite a bit of egg on its own face from those obsolete safety regulations requiring a *maximum* of 16 (18?) lifeboats for "ships 10,000 tons and over" -- written when "and over" wasn't likely to be by much!

John

 

[John M. Feeney]

Before everybody goes at me, I invented the girlfriend!

Aw shucks, Dave! You had my curiosity really piqued, too. ;^)

Cheers,
John

 

[Parks Stephenson]

What would you think was deleted from the historical record, and HOW?

I'm not hinting at conspiracy, just suggesting that we're missing something somehow. The easy question first: "How?" Answer: I don't know.

Now for the harder question: "What?" Well, if I knew what was missing, I could be more detailed with my questions. However, some of what we're talking about here is just not to be found in the historical record. Examples: What was Stone really seeing, or thought he was seeing? What was the exact nature of Stone's/Gibson's reports to Lord? Likewise, what were the political deals made, if such were, that kept the Californian officers from losing their licenses? What were the reasons that convinced the powers-that-were to not proceed with a prosecution of the principals? I am aware of most, if not all, of the speculation from Reade to Feeney, but I'd like to hear it directly from Lord, Stone, Mersey & Co.

These are just examples. Obviously, there have to be more. I'm not saying that any of it was written into the record, then spirited away by the great defenders of the Empire, but the fact is that those very vital clues to the whole affair are not in the historical record. We are then left with speculation, which varies depending on the personal bias of the speculator.

I hate very much to say it, but the reasons behind the inaction of the Californian officers may remain an "unknowable" forever. Which means I'll never be satisfied. Which will drive me to drink. Well, maybe an extra beer at night before logging on to E-T.

Parks

 

[John M. Feeney]

Hi, Parks: OK. Then I assume you actually meant "omitted", not "deleted" (from the historical record).

What were the reasons that convinced the powers-that-were to not proceed with a prosecution of the principals? I am aware of most, if not all, of the speculation from Reade to Feeney, but I'd like to hear it directly from Lord, Stone, Mersey & Co.

I wasn't suggesting you seek out mere speculation. I asked if you had access to Reade, because the actual *correspondence* of various members of the BOT is contained therein -- information you can't obtain from the Inquiries. (As Dave Gittins already pointed out, any criminal prosecution was ultimately the Board of Trade's call, not Mersey & Co.'s.) Perhaps that's the link you're missing. And Reade's sources are clearly identified in most cases; so if you wanted to explore this independently, you'd have an excellent guide map.

I assume you've read Reade. But do you have access to a copy for reference to those particulars? (Also, the only further reliable information you're liable to find on Stone is there.)

Myself, I try never to speculate without clearly labeling it as such. (As does Reade, for the most part.)

John

 

[Dave Gittins]

Naturally in these cases not everything is written down, so we may be missing out on private discussions between say, Sydney Buxton and Herbert Asquith. The written evidence is quite detailed and shows how it was decided not to prosecute. There was no need to make political deals. For those not familiar with the British government, Buxton was a member of the governing Liberal Party. They had the numbers in Parliament, so they handled things as they pleased. The opposition actually called for various actions on Titanic, including an all-part committee of inquiry instead of Mersey's court. However, the government had the numbers and did as it liked. Buxton's position was quite unlike that of an American Secretary of State who gets into a jam and has to handle both Houses and the President.

 

[Parks Stephenson]

John,

I have a copy of Reade on my shelf.

Dave,

I understand how government works and my point is that we may never know the real reasons behind the decisions made.

To all,

This Californian discussion is absorbing waaay too much of my time and is detracting from another project I have in the works. I stated my confusion and was pleased to read discussion along those lines. Now that I find myself spinning my wheels again (a common occurrance whenever I involve myself in Californian debates), I'm going to take a break and let others have their say. It's been fun and thought-provoking, and I'm sure I'll be back at it when the topic is brought up again.

Parks