New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-09-21
THE NETS INVESTIGATION
REVIEW OF THE TESTIMONY-WHERE THE RE-
sPONsIBILITY SEEMS TO REST.

REVIEW OF THE TESTIMONY-WHERE THE RE-
sPONSIBILITY SEEMS TO REST.
On Aug. 81 the day after the Metis disas-
ter Supervising Inspector Low ordered the NewIOnd0n
Board Of Steamboat Inspectors under whose Jursdic
ton the case fell to sttute Investigation, and on
Monday it began its sttings accomplishing little on
that day The Inspectors resumed their session on Tues
dav and were occupied on Wednesday with prepare
tons to continue the investigation at Providence on
Thursday afternoon. The Board has only two members
E p. Beckwith, Inspector of Hulls Chairman, and T.
b. Hovey Inspector of Boilersand in view of the fact
that Mr. Beckwith, having entered upon his duties at
the beginning Of the month, inexperienced in such
matters and also that most Of the officers Of the Metis
held licenses from the NewYork office, the Department
al Washington ordered L. H. Booe, Chairman OF the
New-York Board who conducted the Wesiaed investi-
CATION to sit with the NewLondOn Board as Chairman
He arrived at Providence Friday morning, and the
Board continued inquiries till the close of the follow
ing week when it adjourned to meet at New London
yesterday.
During the eleven days thus occupied by the invest
cation the testimony of about forty persons was taken
including representatives of the officers and crew OF the
Metis and Nete Cushing passengers and others. Much
OF the evidence was worthless Many passengers were
eager TO testify, but little more than recital OF
their personal experience very thrilling they
bered It, but not worth the paper 1t was taken down
upon as evidence Many of their assertions in relation
10 the conduct OF the officers and the condition Of the
vessel were hardly more valuable. Much the same may
be said Of the testimony Of many members Of the Metiss
crew. and here there multitude OF minor incon
sstences The gs Of the case as thus far developed is
given below:
l. There is abundant evidence that both vessels dis
played the proper lights so that negligence here cannot
explain the collision.
H. In regard to the question Of responsibility for the
collision the testimony is conflicting The schOoner's
story was told first; was brief, consistent and to the
point it told so early that the steamers probable
story could not have been anticipated the bearing of
the witnesses and the incidents OF the examination al
ford strong presumptve evidence of its truthfulness
II is 20 the effect that the schooner sailing west by
south; the steamers green light at the sarboard
bow the steamer should accordingly have passed to the
sarboard but suddenly changed It's course crossed their
bow, and was struck little abaf the port bow. On the
other hand, there much seeming honesty IN the es
moDy Of the steamers bow Waterman pilot and Wheels
man, and their combined testimony was TO the effect
that they were sailing due east first both the
schoOners lights and then her red one. trhe TO their
port bow she approached them she veered TO port
and struck them they turning sharp starboard
10 avoid the collision There two points which
damage the testimony OF the steamers crew IN this
matter ana 1t viii be one OF the chief objects OF the
ainder OF the investigation to inquire into them but at
present both sides plead guitless.
Ill There is testimony that the weather not
suay severe that on such nights It Is not expected that
be made his appearance at once after the accident and
engaged In his duties from that time I'LL the deck
struck the breakers In other words that there was
fair general attention TO duties the captains part as
we'll as OH the part OF Capt. Hull, who board as
passenger and the part Of the other officers OF the
vessel. II condemned at all, 1t must DO for special
points Of their service.
". II is clear that the fracture the second
water ght compartment from the bow; the water
accumulated here broke down the bukhead toward the
stern rushed in torrents into the aerpart OF the vessel
put fires, and filed the hull and caused 70
sink whereas had the bUlkhead held, the accumulated
water might have been carried into port, the boat
might at least have been seached and ii IL clear that
this bulkhead should have held though, perhaps half
the bulkheads afOat would be hardly Trustworthy
the iet and with which they made water tight
having very bad effect on wood not kept wet. fhe