Page 66 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 32 - 36

The Commissioner: Mr. Laing is demonstrating - I cannot say in such a way that I can understand - that Mr. Edwards’ calculations were wrong. I know that Mr. Edwards’ calculations have been wrong in other respects, and that may be some evidence that they are wrong in this, but I do not profess at present to understand them. The Attorney-General: Neither do I. The Commissioner: Do you understand them, Mr. Laing? Mr. Laing: Very indifferently, my Lord. There is very little information to be gleaned out of this book about these matters. The Commissioner: I shall not be at all offended if you give me a candid answer, but do you think you are ever going to make me understand them? Mr. Laing: On the material before your Lordship, so far as the figures and calculations are concerned, I certainly do not, because I have not the means of putting the calculation before you; it is not on the evidence, but I have the results of the calculations in evidence. I pointed out that the freeboard exceeded by 3 inches the requirements of Table C, and all these gentlemen from the Board of Trade have been called, and say that every regulation was complied with. Your Lordship has the certificate which was handed in at a very early stage of this case - the certificate of the freeboard of this vessel; and it is astounding, it is monstrous to think that this vessel should have been allowed to go away with her bulkheads a deck below where they ought to be. That cannot be conceived. The Commissioner: Have the underwriters paid on the policy? Mr. Laing: I believe they have. The Commissioner: I do not think they can get their money back. Mr. Laing: Your Lordship is asked to find this vessel unseaworthy on no evidence at all except on a calculation the factors of which I have showed are not correct. I have a method which has been shown to me of demonstrating how my 11 feet 2 1/2 inches is correct. The Commissioner: Do you question 11 feet 2 1/2 inches, Mr. Pringle? Mr. Pringle: If you had permitted me earlier, my Lord, I was going to explain that it was not really now in dispute - at least, so far as I am concerned. The Commissioner: Then I am sorry I did not ask you earlier. Does that correction disturb Mr. Edwards’ calculation? Mr. Pringle: I think it does. Mr. Edwards was not quite sure himself, I think. The Commissioner: That is a very candid and a very fair admission, and I really do not think, after that, we need go any further on this point. Mr. Pringle: If your Lordship will allow me to make an explanation - The Commissioner: Certainly. Mr. Pringle: The only figures before these were the figures in the correspondence. The Commissioner: That is, the black figures in this letter. Mr. Pringle: Yes, and we thought it only right to test those figures to see exactly on what basis a new freeboard had been assigned to this vessel, because undoubtedly the new assignment of freeboard was a matter of considerable consequence, as it was going to make a difference in respect of the decks or deck to which the bulkheads should be carried, as those were the bulkheads which were the vital bulkheads in connection with the vessel, and we thought it right that the matter should be tested. On the figures given there, a moulded depth of 45 feet and a load draught of 34 feet 9 inches, we found there was a deficiency which has been already mentioned. Then it was stated in evidence - I think it was by Mr. Archer - or it is stated in the correspondence, that a difference was made on the freeboard, and on testing this difference with the figures in the correspondence we found that that was not sufficient to bring it below Table C; and undoubtedly, I think it will be admitted that it was not sufficient on the figures which were used in the calculations.