Page 146 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 14 - 18

ship sinking. 18677. In regard to whether or not the ship was likely to sink? - No. 18678. You had no such conversation? - No. 18679. When you were examined in America were you asked with regard to this. It is on page 924. Senator Smith asked you: “Did the Chief Engineer of the ‘Titanic’ state to you the extent of the damage? - (A.) He said he thought the damage was serious, but that he hoped the pumps would be able to control the water. (Q.) How long was it after the impact? - (A.) I should think it would be perhaps half an hour afterwards - 35 or 40 minutes.” I want to know, were you told at any time before you left the ship, by the Chief Engineer or the Captain, or by any of the officers of the ship that the ship was doomed? - No, I was not. 18680. We have heard a good deal in the course of this Enquiry of people being unwilling to leave the ship in the lifeboats. Do not you think if those in charge of the ship knew that she was doomed, and was about sinking, that they should have given this information to all the passengers? The Commissioner: That is not a question to ask him. That is a question for me. 18681. (Mr. Scanlan.) So far as you know, I take it from your evidence that there was no general intimation conveyed to the passengers that the “Titanic” was sinking, and could not be kept afloat? - Not that I know of. 18682. You have ordered additional lifeboat accommodation for all your ships, I understand? - Yes. 18683. That is one of the first things you did on reaching America, according to your statement over there? - We have. 18684. And do you now in all your ships provide sufficient lifeboat accommodation to accommodate every passenger and every member of the crew? - Yes. 18685. Have you made any alteration in the manning of your ships in order to provide a greater number of men to lower and navigate your lifeboats? - I have no knowledge in regard to it. 18686. Do you know whether or not this has been done? - I do not. 18687. Does it not strike you, being a large shipowner and a man of great experience in shipping, that, seeing it took your crew on the “Titanic” over two hours to lower nineteen boats, including the collapsibles, and to give accommodation to 703 people, in order to have adequate provision for taking away say 2,500 people, you would require drastic alteration in the crew? - Naturally. 18688. (The Commissioner.) Will you paraphrase “naturally,” and tell me exactly what you mean by it? - If you wanted to get the same number of boats out in the same length of time you would naturally want a greater number of crew to do it. 18689. If you wanted what? - If you wanted to get the extra boats out in the two hours you would want more men to do it. 18690. Are you talking about a possible 40 boats? - Yes, or whatever extra number of boats you put on. 18691. Then your “naturally” comes to no more than this, that it takes more men to work more boats? - Yes, if you want to put them out in the same length of time. 18692. (Mr. Scanlan.) Do you mean extra deckhands? - I do not think it is absolutely necessary to have a deckhand to lower a boat. 18693. To lower or man the boats? - Yes. 18694. You think that would require a greater number of men experienced in the manning and lowering of boats? - For the number of boats we had on board the “Titanic”? 18695. No. You state now that you have altered your system. Formerly you provided accommodation for a limited number. In the case of the “Titanic” it was for 1,100. The “Olympic” is a boat of the same size, and you had, I daresay, a similar provision on her, and now