New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-07-12
BLAME COLLIER FOR
EMPRESS DISASTER
Commissioners Find Third
Officer Changed the
StOrstad'S Course.
SHOULD HAVE CALLED
CAPTAIN IN THE FOG
Allegations as to Difficult Steer
ing of Liner UnfOunded-
Recommendations.

Quebec, July 1.-THE collier Stor-
staG is held 70 blame for the sinking
Of the Empress Of Ireland in the St.
Lawrence River with the loss of more
than one thousand lives on May 90 in
the findings Of the wreck commission,
handed down to-day. The commission
holds that the disaster was due to the
Storstad's change of course, ordered by
the third officer without instructions
from the first officer, who was in charge
Of the collier at the time.
The Golfers third officer found re-
sponsible is Alfred Tuftenes. He was
on the bridge when the crash occurred.
1--WE regret" says the finding, "to
have 10 impute blame to any one in
connection with this lamentable disas-
ter and we should not do so if we felt
that any reasonable alternative was
left TO us. We can, however. come to
no other conclusion than that Mr.. Tuf-
tenes was wrong and negligent in alter
ing his course in the fog, as he un-
doubtedly did, and that he was wrong
and negligent in keeping the navigation
of the vessel in his own hands and in
failing to call the captain when he
saw the fog coming or.
at is not to be supposed that this
disaster was in any way attributable
to any special characteristics of the st.
Lawrence waterway. II was disaster
which might have occurred in the
Thames. in the CLYDE. in the Mersey or
elsewhere in similar circumstances.
such is the conclusion at which we
have arrived in the question as to who
was 10 blame for the disaster. But the
question o. much greater public inter
est and Importance remains 20 be con-
sidered. viz: Why the ship sank so
quickly. and what steps, II any, can he
taken to prevent the terrible conse-
ouences which so often follow such
disasters.
Two Different Stories Told.
"The main difference between the
two stories (of the officers OF the En-
,
is 60 be found in the description Of the
way in which the two vessels were ap-
proaching each other at the time the
Empress Of Ireland changed her course
afte. having obtained an ofling from
Father Point.
THE witnesses from the Storstad cay
they were approaching so as TO pass
red to red. while those from the En-
press Of ireland say they were APP
preaching so az TO pass green to green.
The stories are irrec0ncilable and we
have to determine which IS the more
probable. Times. distances and bear
ings vary so much. even in the evidence
from witnesses from the same snip,
that IL is impossible to rely or 20 base
conclusions upon them. We have, there
fore thought it advisable TO found our
conclusions almost entirely uDor the
events spoken TO by the witnesses and
upon their probable sequence in order
10 arrive at solution of the difficulty.
after carefully weighing the eyi-
dencc we have come to Tho conclusion
that Mr.. Tuftenes was mistaken II he
supposed that there was any intention
on Che part OF the Empress Of Ireland
20 pass port 20 port, or that she, IN ftct,
By her lights manifested the intention
of doing so: bu. il appears TO us to be
n mistake which would have been OF no
consequence II both ships nad subse-
quently kept their courses.
Shortly after the ships came into
the position OF green TO green, 9s
claimed by Captain Kendall, "a red to
rcd. as claimed By Mr.. Tuftenes, the fog
shut them out from each other, and it
il while they were both enveloped IN
this fog that the course OF one or the
other was changed, and tho collision
broupht about. From the evidence nd
duced on behalf OF both vessels, IT Is
plain that before the fog. and when
they last saw each other, there was 40
r:sk Of collision II each kept her course.
Therefore, the question as to who is to
blame resolves itself into simple is
sue- namely, which Of the ships
changed her course during the fog.