Page 229 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 14 - 18

was asked: “You have told me now what your answer is. What was your answer?” And he says: I should say if a man can see far enough to clear ice, he is perfectly justified in going full speed. (Q.) Then, apparently, you did not expect your Captain to slow down when he had ice reports? - (A.) No, certainly not.” Do you agree with that? - Entirely. 19549. And in view of what has occurred, would you in giving the verbal instructions that you have told us about to your Captain - would you repeat and say this: We do not expect you to slow down when you have ice reports? - I most certainly will not say anything of the kind. 19550. You would not give them instructions to that effect? - No, of course I would not. To tell a man not to slow down! It would be ridiculous. 19551. Although at the same time you would justify him when he had failed to slow down although he had ice reports? - I should expect him to exercise his discretion as a good seaman, and err on the side of safety; but as to telling him not to slow down it would be criminal. 19552. But you would justify him when he did not slow down? - Under proper conditions I would, yes. Examined by Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS. 19553. Yesterday you said that in your view it would be unwise to have such a number of boats as to accommodate everybody aboard ship? - I did. 19554. Was your idea of the unwisdom based upon your faith in the unsinkability of the ship? - No. 19555. What was it based upon? - I have already said, I think, that my objection to it would be that in the case of a ship such as the “Titanic” she would have to carry something like 60 boats, and I do not consider it is possible to put 60 boats on that ship without hampering her deck so that the working of those boats would not be interfered with. 19556. Then do you believe that you could still have less boat accommodation and passengers carried though you have not faith in the unsinkability of the ship? - I do. There are certain risks connected with going to sea which it is impossible to eliminate, just as there are risks in connection with travelling on land. 19557. And you think that those risks ought to be borne by, at all events, a proportion of the passengers and crew on every one of your ships? The Commissioner: Ought to be divided amongst them, not borne by a proportion, but divided amongst them generally. This does not help me very much. It appears to me that Mr. Sanderson is quite right. Every person who goes to sea, or, for that matter, who walks on land, must expect some risks. Mr. Edwards: Yes; quite so, my Lord, and, as I understand, the purpose of this Commission is to find out how we can reduce those risks to an absolute minimum. The Commissioner: That is quite true; that is one of the purposes, no doubt. Mr. Edwards: So that I can put it to Mr. Sanderson that your idea with regard to boat accommodation bears no relation to your ideas as to the sinkability of the ship. The Commissioner: I do not understand that question. What does it mean? 19558. (Mr. Clement Edwards.) I will put it in parts, my Lord. (To the Witness.) First of all, I understand you to say that you regard it as unwise to carry such a number of boats as would provide accommodation in the event of disaster for every person on board the ship? - I do. The Commissioner: He has said that three or four times. Now, what is the question? 19559. (Mr. Clement Edwards.) I understand you to say that that is not based upon your faith in the unsinkability of the ship? - It is not based upon that because I think the objections I have mentioned apply to any ship, unsinkable or not. 19560. If that is your view, will you say why there is any need to carry any boats at all? - For