New Britain herald., 1914-07-11
STORSTAD TO BLAME
 FOR EMPRESS WRECK
Collier Held Responsible for St.
 Lawrence RlVer Disaster.
FINDINGS HANDED DOWN TODAY

Third Officer. Alfred Tuftenes Charged
 With Changing Crafts Course When
 He Saw Fog Coming in Without
 Notifying Ships Captain.
 Quebec, July 1.-The collier Stor- stad is held to blame for the Elm press of Ireland disaster, in the find- ings of the wreck commission, hand ed down today. The commission holds that the disaster was due to the Storstad's change of course. The change of course was ordered by the third officer without instructions from the first officer, who was in charge of the collier at the time.
 The Empress was sunk in the St. Lawrence on May 29 with a loss of more than one thousand lives.
 Inquiry in Quebec.
 The inquiry into the disaster was begun in Quebec on June 16 by Q commission composed of Lord Mersey. formerly presiding justice of the Brit ish admiralty court; Sir Adolpho Routhier of Quebec and Chief Justice Mcleod of New Brunswick. The commissioners were assisted in their work by Commander F. w. Caborne, of the British Royal Naval Reserves; Professor John Welch of Newcastle, England; Captain Demers of the De- minion wreck commission and Engi- 'neer Commander Howe of the Ca nadian Naval service. Commander Caborne and Professor Welch were nominated by the British Board of Trade. Lord Mersey also presided over the inquiry into the Titanic dis aster.
 The collier's third officer found re- sponsible is Alfred Tuftenes. He was on the bridge when the crash oc- cured.
 Tuftenes Was Wrong.
 MT. Tuftenes," says the finding. was wrong and negligent in alter ing his course in the fog as he un- doubtedly did, and 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 on.
 Tt is not to be supposed that this disaster was in any way attributable to any special characteristics of the St. Lawrence waterway. It was a disaster which might have occurred in the Thames, in the Clyde. in the Mersey or elsewhere, in similar cir cumstances.
 Important Question Remains.
 Such is the conclusion at which we have arrived on the question as to who was to blame for the dis aster. But the question of much greater public interest and importance remains to be considered, viz: Why the ship sank so quickly and what steps, if any, can be taken to prevent the terrible consequences which so cften follow such disasters.
 'The main difference between the two stories (of the officers of the En- press and the Storstad, respectively is to be found in the description Of the way in which the two vessels were approaching each other at the time the Empress of Ireland changed her course, after having obtained an offlng from Father Point
 Stories Are Irreconcilable.
 'The witnesses from the Storstad say they were approaching so as to pass red to red, while those from the Empress of Ireland say they were so as to pass green to green The stories are irreconcil- able and we have to determine which Is the more probable. Times, dis tances and bearings vary so much even in the evidence from witnesses from the same ship, that it is inn possibly to rely or to base conclusions upon them. We have, therefore. thought it advisable to found our con- clusions almost entirely upon the events spoken to by the witnesses and upon their probable sequence in or der to arrive at solution of the difficulty.
 After carefully weighing the evil dence we have come to the conclu- sion that MT. Tuftenes was mistaken if he supposed that there was any intention on the part of the Empress of Ireland to pass port to port. or that she. in fact, by her lights man. ifested the intention of doing so; but it appears to us to be a mistake which would have been of no con- sequence if both ships had subse- ouently kept their courses.
 Course Changed in Fog.
 Shortly after the ships came into the position of green to green as claimed by Captain Kendall, or red to red as claimed by MT. Tuftenes, the fog shut them out from each ether. and it is while they were both enveloped in this fog that the course of one or the other was changed, and the collision brought about. From the evidence adduced on behalf of both vessels, it is plain that before the fog, and when they last saw eacn other there was no risk of collision'l if each kept her course. Therefore, the question as to who is to blame