The position of Stone's first "Flash" relative to the nearby vessel.


Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,191
661
213
Funchal. Madeira
The Leyland Line did not "give Lord the Boot", Bob His resignation was reluctantly asked for due the pressure put on the Liverpool Office management after a meeting of the Board of Directors to discuss Lord.s case. One of the London Directors, I believe the man's name was Mattinson, insisted on Lords's resignation. However, when he left Leyland Line, Lord was given no less than two good references from his Liverpool Office bosses, Roper and Roberts.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
416
19
18
Usa
There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Stone and Mr. Gibson were watching the Titanic to sink.
I believe a few factors contributed to the Californian’s inaction.
The most important one was that Mr. Stone was sure that the Titanic steamed away, and the ships in distress do not.
He could not have known about unusual currents common in the area.
1992 reappraisal should had considered the currents because at that time there were dozens the IIP reports which described them.
But why to complain about 1992 if even in 2019 the role of the currents is mostly ignored.
Captain Rostron made an honest mistake. For him there was no reason in the world not to tell the truth.
On the other hand, Captain Lord had many reasons not to tell the truth. The scrape log book was never found. Besides I doubt that a journalist would have came up with such details at his own.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,191
661
213
Funchal. Madeira
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.
1575482264750.png

"New York World 1916
In 1916, the price of eggs having risen to an unprecedented 80 cents a dozen in some parts of the country, the women of America decided to boycott eggs. By the end of November, there was a state-wide boycott of eggs planned by the women and public officials. The St Paul housewives in Minnesota declared a boycott on cold storage eggs. Milwaukee club women appealed to members to stop buying eggs for six weeks. Mrs. Ellis Logan began collecting signatures on a petition to Washington to ask Congress to provide relief from the high cost of America’s morning eggs.

Then on Friday, 8 December that year, an apparent victory was in sight. Headlines of “Eggs Drop Ten Cents” and “Cost of Living Smashed” appeared in the Chicago newspapers but the following day, it became apparent that this was nothing but fake news since the retail grocers in the city continued selling eggs at the same price. It was alleged that the newspapers were in cahoots with the food retailers.

The prices continued to fluctuate with supply and demand and the cost of eggs continued to rise steadily in the years following the 1916 boycotts."
 
Last edited:
Mar 22, 2003
5,626
888
273
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
The Leyland Line did not "give Lord the Boot"
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."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
416
19
18
Usa
They did.
Oh, sure. They said :
“A current was setting southerly but is likely to have affected both vessels similarly until TITANIC sank, so their distance apart will not have appreciably changed during the period in question.”

In fact, even if none of them was drifting in its own eddy, it is still extremely unlikely that both steamers were affected similarly.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,191
661
213
Funchal. Madeira
”give the boot” vs. “compelled to resign”. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
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.
Can you guess what would happen to an Insurance claim from a Company who had knowingly hired such a man and said man had been in command of one of their ships when it incurred a loss?

In fact, the members of The Board meeting during which it was decided to ask for Lord's resignation were balanced in favour of retaining him on the payroll. But the dissenting vote, came for the Director with the most influence in the market place who threatened dire consequences if Lord was retained. I think that is written somewhere but I can't find it.
 

Bob_Read

Member
May 9, 2019
416
175
43
USA
Why would you give a good reference for a bad employee? It’s done every day in the private sector. A company risks more by telling the bad truth about a bad employee. If they unload a bad employee by giving him glowing reviews, there are only upsides. He’s not their problem anymore. Usually there are benefits for an employee who will voluntarily resign. If he hadn’t resigned and forced Leyland to terminate him, he may have faced retribution in the form of prosecution. He played it smart by moving on quietly.
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,082
486
93
South Wales UK
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.

Cheers,

Julian
 
Last edited:

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,082
486
93
South Wales UK
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."
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...

The reality was in fact something far different!

Cheers,
Julian
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,191
661
213
Funchal. Madeira
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.

Cheers,

Julian
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.

Lord did not lose his command due to incompetence, but because he was condemned in the eyes of the public who, even to the present day, expressed public outrage at an event which they were not qualified to judge. An event which had been inaccurately analysed and improperly publicised.

Two "Dog" quotes come to mind:
" Give a dog a bad name and it sticks." which, in the case of Captain Lord, has been perpetuated throughout the years. However, Lord rose above the childish fish-wife prattle and went on to have a successful career at sea. This second dog quote comes to mind: "A dog in a kennel barks at his fleas; a dog hunting does not notice them."
 

Steven

Member
Sep 24, 2016
53
35
28
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.
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.

I have never said, nor thought, nor believed that those on the opposite side of the argument to myself over the so-called 'Californian incident' were or are "blinkered"... they hold a different view than myself, and I respect their opinion even if I don't necessarily come to the same conclusions.

I believe what I believe because I am being objective about the facts of the matter... to me, there is simply no way that Titanic and Californian were anywhere near each other's visible horizon line... if you accept that conclusion, everything else flows from that.

But that's just, like, my opinion... maaaaan.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,191
661
213
Funchal. Madeira
The abject nonsense that is being spouted forth on these pages would be laughable if it were not for the fact that it is offered as proof-positive of misconduct.

Let's get one thing straight - I am not "obsessed" with the "Californian" story, It is but one of many hundreds I have investigated throughout a very long career in the business. If I had suggested some of the nonsense being written on these pages by enthusiastic amateurs, I would never have got past the 4th Year of my Apprenticeship and my association with Lloyds and US Underwriters would have been as long as an ice cube in Titanic's boiler room.

Here are some of the facts concerning this case.

There is no sworn evidence that Titanic ever turned north.
There is no sworn evidence that a south-setting current was actually effecting vessels in the area at the time in question.
There is no sworn evidence that Stone's "flash" was a rocket of any kind.
There is no sworn evidence that Stone and Gibson did not see a vessel changing her bearing.
There is no sworn evidence that Gibson and Stone saw Carpathia's rockets of comfort above their visible horizon.

There is sworn evidence that there was nothing to make Titanic turn north before she stopped or that she was in fact heading north when she stopped.
There is written evidence which indicates a current setting Northeastward in the area and at the time in question.
There is sworn evidence that a distress rocket exploded with a loud bang at maximum trajectory and thereafter produced a shower of bright individual lights which descended slowly seaward.
There is sworn evidence that a vessel was seen with binoculars ahead of the stopped Titanic and that the range lights of that vessel indicated she would pass down the port side of Titanic.
There is sworn evidence that at least an hour before Titanic sank, the nearby vessel was showing a red light to her red light and that the red lights in question were visible by the naked eye.
There is sworn evidence that when Titanic was showing her red light to the red light of the nearby vessel, Californian was showing a green light to her nearby vessel.
There is sworn evidence that the bearing of the vessel stopped near to the Californian changed by a considerable amount over a period of about an hour.
There is sworn evidence that at the time Carpathia was sending up her signals of comfort, signals were seen from the Californian at extreme range.

You will note that I have never uttered the name of Lord until this moment.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,626
888
273
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
There is sworn evidence that Titanic sank at 41° 46'N, 50° 14'W by multiple people. (13 miles west of the wreck site.)
There is sworn evidence that Titanic was facing northward when stopped.
There is sworn evidence that green was actually seen before red from Titanic.
There is sworn evidence that the vessel seen from Titanic was to her "northward."
There is sworn evidence that that rockets kept on the same bearing as this steamer as she allegedly was steaming away.
There is sworn evidence that that the steamer started to steam way after the first rocket was seen from more than one person.
There is sworn evidence that those rockets from Carpathia were seen to SSW despite Carpathia coming up from the SE.

I could go on, but why bother?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
416
19
18
Usa
There is sworn evidence that those rockets from Carpathia were seen to SSW despite Carpathia coming up from the SE.
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.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
416
19
18
Usa
I believe that any researcher before making any statement should be able to confirm if with evidence. Could you?