Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1872-09-10

were around this place where the schoonerlbroke
into the steamer. Some of these were men of
large experience on the water. How do Won ac-
count for the fact that none of these men heard
the rushing of that water when it must have
been rushing in perfect tOrrent2
Al think the hole must have been made
about at or below the water line; perhaps a
little aft of the hole in the bulwarks above the
guard; the distance from there to the deck being
some twelve feet, probably, and the hole being
broken through under the deck enclosed in
this compartment, don't see how they could
hear il.
Q.-Woud there be any difference in the noise
that the water would make inside, whether the
water was passing below the water line or above
it.
Al think they could not distinguish between
the sound OF the water on the inside or the
sound Of the sea on the outside of the boat.
Q.-IhoSe two compartments forming some
thing like box, would not water entering to
the depth Of three or four feet be very likely to
make smashing noise that these men could
have heard on deck?
A.-Ihe only chance ] see for it to have been
heard would have been for parties in the fore
castle.
Q.-Leaying the noise out of the question,
don't you think body of water in there three
or four feet deep would have communicated a
shock to the vessel that ought to have been read
NY distinguished by an experienced boatman
Al don't think that body of water
would cause the shock that a less quantity
would; il would roll with the ship and would
roll deep; don't think there was ANYTHING to
attract the attention of the officers unless they
thought the ship was leaking; they used every
pfecaution to ascertain if there was any leak in
going into the forcastle, which was forward of
the forward compartment, and finding no water
thcre, ana going to the engine room and getting
a report from the engineer tina: the ship was all
right and was not making any water.
Odd | understand you that the vessel was
thoroughly examined on the outside by this
party?
At was so reported to me.
Q.-lt you had thought there was water
coming into the second compartment what
course would you have taken to discover it or to
satisfy yourself2
Al should have headed the ship to the west
ward and got the wind on the port side; either
cleared away the matches and got down from
that hole, throwing the freight overheard, or
have cut hole through the deck in the steerage
and got down into that compartment; the kitch-
EN- was abaft of the oilers room, and covered
portion Of this hole. was satisfied that there
was thorough examination of the outside of
the hull.
Q.-Do you actually think that the second
mate, by just taking a light and looking over
ms guard, which projected eighteen inches, he
being three feet above, could sufficiently exam
inc that side of the ship?
A.-Fhe description had that night from the
pilot was that he had man out on the guard
with lantern, holding him over by the collar
so that he could see the water from that position
Q.-From testimony that has been given do
you Stll think that a mau in that position could
have seen the water and the whole port. slde of
the veSsel2
A.-From the description which | now have
of the hole made in the bulwark, it was about
three streaks of the bulwark, say foot man
out in that position, with the length of his body
n hN1a hold /
De ahle to look down to the wafer; the chatting
pier of the guard outside of the buwarks
should say projected out ten inches.
Q.-Was it not singular that vessel so loaded
entirely between decks, heading east, with the
wind southeast, and still coming around up into
the wind, should not roll at all?
Al don't mean that she did not roll at all !:
but she did not roll sufficiently to the windward
Q.-Was not that an evidence that she was
water logged?
Alt did not occur to me at the time;
thought it was owing to the breeze blowing on
the starbOard side
c. How high would this water have had to
nave risen IN this compartment to have been
dlscoYerable by the motion of the vessel, pro-
Vlded the compartments had been tight?
All those compartments could have held
until the quantity of water was sufficient, it
would nave been discovered, think, by the YES
sells setting forward
Q.-At what stage of the rise would an expe-
rlenced seaman have discovered that she was
waterlogged, provided your compartments had
been tight?
Ali the water had risen in three, four or
five feet, it would have been discovered.
Q.-lf you had been in the pilot house when
this schooner was discovered, don't you think
yon would have kept the steamer more to the
starboard?
Al think not, from the description which
have OF the vessel; | should have done the same
as he did-put the wheel to port when the
schooner showed her red light.
Q.-Has there ever been any complaint of this
sells?
A.-Never to my knowledge considered him
an elt1cent and reliable man in every respect in
handling and steering a vessel.
Q.-Do you know Off any hole being cut through
to that side of the compartment from the engine
room or coal bunkers?
A.-No, sir; have never heard of ANYTHING
cut through
Odd you carry rockets to signal vessels
with in the night?
Al could not say whether there was any
on board the Metis or not; presume there was
Q.-fou are certain there were none used?
A.-Not so far as i know.
IL. s. Somes and Charles P. Young, passen-
gers, were examined, but no new facts of i'm
portance elected.
Adjourned till to morrow