Did the Marconi Scandal Influence the British Inquiry?

[Gordon Mooneyhan]

Forgive my ignorance of British history; perhaps this question doesn't belong here. If that's the case, I trust the moderators will place it where it belongs. Still, Sir Rufus Isaacs, the Attorney General, was the brother of the Director of the US Marconi Company. I seem to recall a scandal involving government officials purchasing Marconi stock at a favorable price. I'm just wondering if there might have been a conflict of interest and Isaacs may have influenced the course of the hearing. Why was the failure of Phillips and Bride to take all the navigational messages to the bridge not more fully pursued? It seems that the Marconi operators may have contributed to the sinking but their involvement was conveniently ignored to protect the investment of government officials.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Sir Rufus Isaacs, the Attorney General, was the brother of the Director of the US Marconi Company. I seem to recall a scandal involving government officials purchasing Marconi stock at a favorable price.

I had read about the Marconi issue but somehow missed the point about Rufus Isaac's "brotherly connection" to it. Thanks for posting it.

I'm just wondering if there might have been a conflict of interest and Isaacs may have influenced the course of the hearing. Why was the failure of Phillips and Bride to take all the navigational messages to the bridge not more fully pursued? It seems that the Marconi operators may have contributed to the sinking but their involvement was conveniently ignored to protect the investment of government officials.

Based on the aforementioned connection, IMO it is possible that there was something of a "look the other way" about the two Sparks. I am sure that our friend Julian Atkins, who has done a lot of research on wireless matters related to the Titanic disaster, will soon be responding to this question with detailed information.

 

[Steven Christian]

Wasn't aware of this scandal. But there's lot of info that popped up searching for it. I was aware of a later scandal involving Marconi when he joined the fascist party during the Mussolini years but that one is not very clear. Anyway many links on the stock scandal.

Marconi scandles at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

 

[Dave Gittins]

The scandal in Britain concerned Sir Rufus Isaacs. Early in 1912, Sir Rufus made a packet by buying Marconi shares low and selling them high, as stockholders often do. Late in 1912 he was accused of insider trading, but he was later cleared. It's been suggested that, as a shareholder, he went easy on Marconi at the British inquiry. If he did, so did everybody else. The court seems to have treated Marconi as a celebrity and as an expert witness. In the USA, he was more closely questioned, but it was mostly about messages sent, or not sent, from Carpathia, after the rescue and the operators trying to make money from their stories.His evidence said very little about the work of Phillips and Bride on Titanic.

 

[Gordon Mooneyhan]

What I'm driving towards is that we know that Phillips did not take the Mesaba ice warning to the bridge, even though, as a navigational message, it should have gone there. And that seems to have been conveniently ignored during the inquiries. If Sir Rufus did not have a connection to the Marconi Company via his brother, do you think the investigation into the Mesaba message might have been pursued? Forget whether or not it would have made a difference in the outcome of events on that night. Marconi was about to get a rather large contract with the British Government. How would it have looked if it had come out that one of his employees may have dropped the ball and, at least indirectly, contributed to the collision and sinking of the RMS Titanic?

 

[Julian Atkins]

Yes, Isaacs was corrupt/guilty of insider dealing, and his brother was in charge of Marconi, and at the very time of the British Inquiry.

Nasty business.

But in the light of the recent events in Gaza it is not appropriate or sensible to comment on this scandal in 1912.

 

[Steven Christian]

Yes, Isaacs was corrupt/guilty of insider dealing, and his brother was in charge of Marconi, and at the very time of the British Inquiry.

Nasty business.

But in the light of the recent events in Gaza it is not appropriate or sensible to comment on this scandal in 1912.

I don't understand. I read briefly about the Marconi scandal. What does a corruption scandal in 1912 have to do with recent events in the mideast? Am I missing something in the history of it? Curious to know.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I don't understand. I read briefly about the Marconi scandal. What does a corruption scandal in 1912 have to do with recent events in the mideast? Am I missing something in the history of it? Curious to know.

I wondered about that myself. The Titanic disaster and Marconi scandal of 1912 are now part of genuine history AND relevant to these forms. The ongoing situation in the Middle East on the other hand is contemporary politics and terrorism, things that are generally considered out of bounds here.

 

[Mark Baber]

The ongoing situation in the Middle East on the other hand is contemporary politics and terrorism, things that are generally considered out of bounds here.

Quite right. Be guided accordingly.

 

[Julian Atkins]

I could quote to you a whole host of contemporaneous stuff on the ‘Marconi Scandal’, but instead have a look at the Wilkipedia page on this that is pretty accurate.

 

[Steven Christian]

The original question by Gordon was if the Marconi Scandal might have influenced the hearings of the British Inquiry. I kind of doubt that it was. The reason being is that scandal didn't break until after the hearings were over. Nobody needed protection from the scandal at that time. It wouldn't needed to be used for a cover up in regards to not calling certain witnesses at the time. The British Inquiry had other faults but I doubt that insider stock trading was one of them. Insider stock trading is par for the course. It's worse today. They've just polished their act a little. In the U.S. insider stock trading for govt officials (politicians) is not illegal as long as you publish the trades within 90 days. By then the money has usually been made. Don't know how that works in Europe.
Edited for correction: They changed the rules to 45 days instead of 90. Which is meaningless.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I could quote to you a whole host of contemporaneous stuff on the ‘Marconi Scandal’, but instead have a look at the Wilkipedia page on this that is pretty accurate.

Yes, that Wikipedia page is quite interesting Julian, thanks. But by "contemporaneous stuff" if you meant the negative sentiment highlighted at the start of the third paragraph of that article, that would hardly classify as such, certainly not to suggest any comparison to current events making the headlines. That sort of thing has been going on for centuries and all sorts of historical events have been associated with that long running negative sentiment. Even William Shakespeare has been accused of it by some analysts because of the theme and lines of one of his well known plays (I think you know which one), perhaps not entirely wrongly.

Like Steven pointed out, The 1912 Marconi Scandal broke only later that year and start of 1913, it might not have had a direct bearing on the way in which Phillips (posthumously) and Bride were 'let off' during the British Inquiry. But IMO Rufus Isaacs may well have been aware of the gathering clouds by the time he represented interests of the Board of Trade at the inquiry and to some extent there might have been some side-stepping of the probing as a result. But I do not believe that Isaacs religious beliefs had anything to do with the later scandal but even if it had done, it has absolutely no relation to current events in the Middle East. So, I respectfully request that we stay off that latter subject here.

 

[X----- X-------]

The scandal in Britain concerned Sir Rufus Isaacs. Early in 1912, Sir Rufus made a packet by buying Marconi shares low and selling them high, as stockholders often do. Late in 1912 he was accused of insider trading, but he was later cleared. It's been suggested that, as a shareholder, he went easy on Marconi at the British inquiry. If he did, so did everybody else. The court seems to have treated Marconi as a celebrity and as an expert witness. In the USA, he was more closely questioned, but it was mostly about messages sent, or not sent, from Carpathia, after the rescue and the operators trying to make money from their stories.His evidence said very little about the work of Phillips and Bride on Titanic.

I completely forgot all about this valued book you strongly advise me to read all those years ago Dave. Got it off the library shelves at home and started the business of re-reaiding the whole episode all over again. Remember, you plead with me to get it and learn something new in the wake of the aftermath.

 

[Julian Atkins]

One might well ask why the Marconi Scandal broke only later that year… The events on which the scandal was based occurred at the time Titanic sank. That is an important distinction that should not be overlooked.

At the very least (and I have stated this clearly in old threads) the criticism some of us have made on here of Phillips and Bride was not properly explored at the British Inquiry, and the simple fact that the Attorney General was the brother of the General Manager of ‘Marconi UK’ raises conflicts of interest.

If you add in a cover up over insider dealing between Titanic sinking and the British Inquiry with key personalities profiting, I personally am of the strong opinion (that I have previously stated on other old threads) that the Attorney General should not have been a key player in the British Inquiry.

(I should add that the involvement of the Attorney General as lead Counsel for a Board of Trade Inquiry may have been unprecedented. Unless I am very much mistaken, I can find no reference in legislation at the time for the Attorney General to be involved in the Merchant Shipping Act. The Attorney General certainly never was involved in Board of Trade investigations into UK railway disasters. I don’t know why Sir Rufus Isaacs was involved as Attorney General).

 

[Samuel Halpern]

I can find no reference in legislation at the time for the Attorney General to be involved in the Merchant Shipping Act.

He, along with many others who participated in the Titanic inquiry, was very much involved in the Hawke/Olympic trial back in Nov 1911. Mr. F. Laing, K.C., Mr. D. Stephens, Mr. H. C. S. Dumas, and Mr. L. F. C. Darby appeared for the Plaintiffs (the White Star Line); and Attorney-General Sir Rufus Isaacs, K.C., M.P., Mr. Butler Aspinall, K.C., Mr. A. D. Bateson, K.C., and Mr. C. Robertson Dunlop appeared for the Defendants (the government). As Attorney-General, Sir Rufus was a government minister, serving as the chief legal advisor of Liberal Prime Minister Herbert Asquith’s administration.