Sorry for my confusion!: I see now that it was Patterson's "hauling" one that Hugill gave. I thought, from what Shogun was saying, that Hugill gave the capstan one. I misread / misinterpreted.

"If Stan Hugill gave this song as another version of "Sacramento", the usual capstan shanty, why he didn't provide the first matched type example? And he gave another "Hauling one instead. "

Because the strange hauling version was precisely what was notable / weird in Patterson, which Hugill wanted to note. He had already given capstan versions, and he wanted, for the record, to also note that it was possible there had also been a hauling version, based on Patterson. Though as Lighter notes, he expressed skepticism, too. (My preference would have been he just ignored it since it is so suspect. I mean, I would certainly note it in a discussion, but in a published work I would not include it... these days, reviewers/editirs would probably compel me to be more concise and leave out such tangential things, or I'd just put a footnote: "It's possible there was a hauling version, based on one source, but the issue with this source is XYZ.")

Also adding here: Colcord cites Patterson in her bibliography. So I, for one, am convinced that Colcord took the "cocktail flows" line from Patterson.

Maybe if I'm free later I'll try to find where else I've seen the "cocktail" line...