May the truth be told. We all know that Stanley Lord would never lie, and newspaper reporters always write about fake news. It was all part of a massive media witch hunt to find a living scapegoat.
That's right. He was "compelled to resign."The Leyland Line did not "give Lord the Boot"
Oh, sure. They said :They did.
Your do not recommend a ship Captain with a publicly high profile bad reputation to another Shipowner by giving him one good reference, let alone two such recommendations. Especially so, one whose seeming mistakes were of such a heinous nature.”give the boot” vs. “compelled to resign”. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Just as an aside, Sam is quoting here from Captain Lord's 1959 Affidavit. I did not, I hope, suggest above that Sam's quote was a misunderstanding of the facts and law by Sam... it was a simple quote by Sam of what Captain Lord said he understood to have happened...That's right. He was "compelled to resign."
"Initially, I had been assured by the Liverpool Management of the Leyland Line that I would be reappointed to the Californian. However, I was later told privately by Mr. Gordon, Private Secretary to Mr. Roper (Head of the Liverpool office of the Leyland Line), that one of the London directors, a Mr. Matheson, K.C., had threatened to resign if I were permitted to remain in the company, and on August 13th I was told by the Marine Superintendent that the company could not give me another ship. I then saw Mr. Roper, who said that it was most unfortunate but the matter was out of his hands and public opinion was against me. I was therefore compelled to resign, up to which time I had been retained on full sea pay and bonus."
A man named Rose was the Company Secretary and, although based at the Liverpool Office, as such, attended and minuted all meetings of the Board of Directors. He was also a confident of Captain Lord. It was Rose who kept Lord informed of all that was going on behind closed doors. It was Rose who told him that although the majority were not in favour of asking Lord for his resignation, one single member threatened to resign if they did not. The Implications for Company Stock were immediately obvious. Sit Miles Mattinson stood as a Conservative MP for Bolton in 1910 , 2 years earlier but failed to get elected. Lord was one of Bolton's sons.We don't have the Company Board records for the Leyland Line of the period, unlike the Harrison Line under which Stone subsequently was employed till his mental breakdown.
Any Company Board resolution or decision would have needed a vote, by a majority and if needed, by the casting vote of the Chairman.
One must consider that the J P Morgan conglomerate owned a controlling shareholding in the Leyland Line, and as such would be able to appoint a majority of the Board members to control the Board of Directors - not just to control happenings at an AGM by exercising a more than 50% shareholding.
My personal view, having a bit of knowledge of Company Law and as it was around 1912, is that the Sir Miles Walker Mattinson KC...
(who was not "Matheson" as quoted by Captain Lord)
... could NOT have swung a Leyland Line Board decision himself individually by his single vote.
The Board could only have resolved to ask for Captain Lord to resign by a majority vote, and as a result what Captain Lord says he was told by Roper, cannot be correct. I think the 1961 taped recorded interview transcripts go into this in more detail.
I think we must consider, according to Company law, that Roper told Captain Lord a 'sop'.
It may be that Sir Miles Walker Mattinson KC objected strongly to Captain Lord continuing his employment with Leyland Line, and he might have had influence over other Board members to get a majority decision. But a 'one dissenting voice' does not of itself on a Board signify anything as per Roper.
The clear implication from a knowledge of Company law is that a majority of the Board voted to ask Captain Lord to resign.
He subsequently did this so far as I can ascertain on 13th August 1912, having by letter dated 10th August 1912 asked the Board of Trade to reconsider his case, and the 2 dates are important as indicating that Captain Lord agreed to resign and wrote his letter to the Board of Trade at the same time.
I have stated previously on another thread that, as per practice of the day and still occurs, if Captain Lord had not agreed to resign, he would not have been provided with a reference from the Leyland Line.
I have spent a bit of time setting out the facts and the law, as others seem to be ignorant of these details, as was apparently Captain Lord in August 1912.
If IMM had a controlling interest in the Leyland Line - which is beyond dispute - and on the Board - then really Sir Miles Walker Mattinson KC was just a bit player in all this, and other factors were at work.
The media picked up on Gill's erroneous story (fake news indeed!) and thereafter had the Californian - and it's Captain in particular - in their sights... a tactic the Mersey inquiry subsequently adopted, it would appear.But Steven, you need to acknowledge why Lord & his officers were subjected to such scrutiny.
It wasn't as if the media picked on a random ship that was in the vicinity.
I realise yourself & Jim are obsessed with the idea that 'opponents' of Lord are simply blinkered by a misguided preconception of events.
But that simply isn't true.
And if you could get past that mindset, you might yourselves be capable of a truly objective analysis of events.
Which could be correct, and provides just another evidence that the Californian was drifting in en eddy, and by the time they observed Carpathia’s rockets she was located northeast of the lifeboats, and not northwest as it was at the beginning of the night. It also confirms Mr. Stone’s testimony that the Titanic was changing bearings.There is sworn evidence that those rockets from Carpathia were seen to SSW despite Carpathia coming up from the SE.