us to whose petition correspondence has been going on for a year. Or the War Office. They have been freed to provide booms as to prevent fire; but have been indignant at being differently treated not very differently from.
It is very late to do anything with regard to Messrs Samuel, but might we not express regret that in Colonel Majendie's decidedly expressed views were ignored, or that Messrs Samuel were not enabled in the first instance to adopt a boom of the kind approved by Col. Majendie?
• say that unless strong reasons can be urged Messrs Samuel & Co should be required to provide booms similar to those to be provided by Messrs Meyer & Co. Tem 24/1/96
Messrs Samuel & Co's petroleum Station. In 1893 they objected on the mainland to a rule (one among regulations) by the Colonial Government that ships carrying petroleum in bulk cargoes, while moored alongside the wharf, be protected offside by booms to prevent collision with other vessels. Col. Majendie, when consulted, advised that Messrs Samuel's objection should be overruled, "and indeed I should personally be disposed to go much further than appears to be contemplated in the direction of booms".
The value of booms, if properly arranged for checking the flow of burning petroleum, quite apart from their utility in preventing collisions. With regard to all his observations on them unless he was told to guide himself in reason to the contrary by the strong reason in regard to be any particular point. This despatch shows that on this point the rule as to booms was maintained out was not extended as Col. Majendie suggested; and the latter being have their station on the island.
It is not quite clear to my mind from his subsequent memorandum which is enclosed, to 17604/96 how far he would have been satisfied or would not.