Sessional_Paper_1907 — Page 1026

630

ROYAL OBSERVATORY, GREENWICH,

LONDON, S.E.,

June 12, 1997.

SIR,-In reply to your letter of April 25th, 14097/1907 relative to the Typhoon at Hongkong on the 18th September last, I have to inform you that a review of the evidence placed before the Committee of investigation points to the conclusion that the finding of the Committee was practically inevitable, having regard to the following considerations deduced from the evidence alone, as I have no other knowledge of local conditions.

(1.) The typhoon of which warning was given by the Director of Sikawei Observatory on 1906 September 15 was apparently not the one which struck Hongkong on the 18th and even had it been proved identical, the Sikawei forecast gave no indication that Hong- kong was threatened, hence the contention that the warning was given and ignored falls to the ground.

(2.) The above is, I take it, the main question before the Committee. The further point as to possible delay on the morning of the 18th in hoisting the "black drum" is not of the same importance. The evidence as to typhoon signs at sunset on the 17th is very uncertai and it appears that those relied upon by one side were admittedly invisible at the Observa tory, and attention is only directed to events on the 18th. Had the staff of the Hong- kong Observatory thought that such a storm was not unlikely it is conceivable that the fall in the barometer might have been noticed earlier, but it does not appear that any such suspicion was justified beforehand and very few minutes elapsed after the barometer indication became unmistakeable before the question of hoisting the drum was raised. If it is true that criticism had been frequently made of unnecessary. warnings the few minutes (10 to 15) further delay is only to be expected, and beyond that the delay in the actual hoisting appears at present unavoidable, though it is likely that some device could be con- trived to shorten the time necessary for this operation.

(3.) I conclude that there remains no question of dereliction of duty at the Observa- tory, and that any possible error of judgment alleged is too uncertain to be regarded as carrying responsibility for damage done.

Your two printed enclosures are returned herewith.

I am, &c.,

W. H. M. CHRISTIE,

Astronomer Royal.