Page 180 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 14 - 18

that time? - No. 19044. You simply handed him back the telegram? - That is all. 19045. If I understand rightly what you have said this morning, leaving it to him to take such precautions as he thought right as the person responsible for the navigation of the ship? - Absolutely. 19046. You thought that he would take precautions? - Naturally. 19047. But what they were you left to him? - Absolutely. 19048. There is just one question I wanted to ask you about the speed. Was the “Titanic” built to go about the same speed as the “Olympic”? - About the same, perhaps a little bit better. 19049. A little bit better than the maximum of the “Olympic”? - That is what was expected. 19050. I asked you some questions about this, and you were not able to give me definite information as to what the maximum speed was that you thought you would get from the “Titanic”? - No, I could not say. 19051. But I see that you were able to tell the Court in America what the maximum speed you expected of the “Olympic” was. I just call your attention to it; you may not remember it. Senator Fletcher put to you this question: “You say you expected in the ‘Titanic’ the same speed that the ‘Olympic’ had, but you did not mention that speed?” And your answer was: “I should call the ‘Olympic’ a good 22-knot ship. She can do better under very favourable circumstances; I think she can work up to 22½ or perhaps 22¾ as a maximum”? - I think that is about right. 19052. And the “Titanic”? - We were hoping that she would do a little bit better than that. 19053. A quarter of a knot, do you mean? - Yes, something like that, a little bit better, so we were told by our shipbuilders. 19054. According to that, then, if she was going 22 knots, that, at any rate, would be within a knot of her maximum speed in favourable circumstances? - I should think so. 19055. I think there is only one other matter I want to ask you about. You knew, I presume, that you had not boats sufficient on the “Titanic” to accommodate all the passengers and crew? - Yes. 19056. So that I mean, supposing all your boats did leave the “Titanic” fully loaded, there still must have been a considerable number of passengers and crew left on the ship? - Yes. 19057. And, indeed, your boat accommodation was not sufficient to take off all the passengers, without the crew, was it? - I believe not. 19058. (The Attorney-General.) I do not know whether your Lordship remembers the figures. It is 1,178 they could carry, all told, and in fact, she carried 1,316 passengers and 892 crew. The object of these questions I am putting to you, Mr. Ismay, is to draw your attention to this, that at any rate when the last boat left the “Titanic” you must have known that a number of passengers and crew were still on board the vessel? - I did. 19059. And you have told us that you did not see any on the deck? - I did not. 19060. At least, I think you limited that to passengers; I am not sure you were asked about the crew? - There were no passengers on deck. 19061. And you said also that you did not see any as the boat was lowered? - I did not. 19062. I am not sure whether you said it in answer to the Court, or whether it is only in the statement I have got from you, but at any rate that was your view; as the boat was lowered and you passed the decks you did not see any passengers on the decks? - I did not. 19063. Where were the passengers then? - I can only suppose the passengers had gone to the afterend of the ship. 19064. Do you mean you would not be able to see them, as your collapsible being just afore the foremost funnel you would not be able to see what was happening on the afterpart of the ship. Is that what you mean? - Yes. 19065. That is where you would expect them to be? - I presume they went there. I was really