This aspect of the Waratah mystery cannot be ignored. Because a maximum draught of 30 ft. 4 1/2 inches was set for Waratah and rubber stamped by the Board of Trade, it does not mean that it was well within the scope of safety for a ship of that size. The writer (and the one in a previous post) uses Waratah as an example of extending the boundaries of safe cargo tonnage. Of course Waratah needed to be too heavy to offset top heaviness, but this was replacing one 'evil' with another.
It was claimed by the owners that Waratah was only one third full, being the off season. It has also been claimed that Waratah had room for another 150 tons departing Adelaide for the last time. This does not equate with one third full. 150 tons is a drop in the ocean in the context of 10 000 to 12 000 tons. There must be a reason why the owners were pushing for a partly loaded Waratah when the true facts contradicted this?
Under no circumstances (aided by very poorly documented cargo manifests) could the owners allow the Court of Inquiry to probe too deeply into the heavily laden aspect of the flagship which foundered off the South African coast - screaming liability!