Page 159 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 14 - 18
P. 159
likely to be damaged was in case of collision - another ship running into her and hitting her on the bulkhead. 18827. I only want to get it for the purpose of future witnesses; you based the belief of her unsinkability upon what was said to you by building experts? - Absolutely. 18828. Now I will come to the question of the “Baltic” telegram. Did you before that particular Sunday know what was the practice with regard to Marconigrams received by the officers on the ship relating to the navigation of the ship? Did you know what it was the practice to do with those Marconigrams as soon as they had been received? - I believe the practice was to put them up in the chart room for the officers. 18829. Did you know that on Sunday, April the 14th? - Yes. 18830. Was not the Marconigram from the “Baltic” essentially a message affecting navigation? - Yes. 18831. Then will you say why, under those circumstances, with that knowledge, you put that Marconigram into your pocket? - Because it was given to me, as I believe now, just before lunchtime, and I went down and had it in my pocket. 18832. And you suggest that you put it in your pocket simply in a fit of absent-mindedness? - Yes, entirely. 18833. And had it occurred to you when you were talking to Mrs. Ryerson that you had absentmindedly put this message into your pocket? - It had not. 18834. It had not occurred to you? - No. 18835. And you still retained it in your pocket until it was asked for by Captain Smith late in the evening? - Ten minutes past seven, I think it was, he asked me for it. 18836. That is to say, it had been in your possession for something like five hours? - Yes, I should think so. 18837. And you seriously say it was put into your pocket in a fit of absentmindedness and retained for five hours? - Yes. 18838. Although you were discussing it with two of the lady passengers? - I was not discussing it with them. 18839. You mentioned it? - I mentioned it. 18840. And took it out and read it? - Yes. 18841. If you had not taken the view that the “Titanic” was unsinkable, would you have insisted in the plans for provision being made for a larger number of lifeboats? - No, I think not. She conformed to the Board of Trade requirements; in fact she was largely in excess of the Board of Trade requirements. 18842. I think you are sufficiently familiar with the Board of Trade regulations to know that the number of boats is treated in relation to the number of bulkheads, and bulkheads are treated in the regulations in relation to safety or unsinkability? - Yes. 18843. If you had not taken the view that the “Titanic” was unsinkable, would you or would you not have insisted upon provision being made for a larger number of boats? - I do not think so. 18844. So that the number of boats, in your view, had nothing at all to do with the relative sinkability of the “Titanic”? - The “Titanic” had more boats than were necessary by the Board of Trade regulations. 18845. Will you answer the question? - What is the question? 18846. The question was this, that according to your view the number of boats had nothing to do with the relative sinkability of the “Titanic”? - No; I do not think so. 18847. So that if you had taken the view that the “Titanic” was not unsinkable you would not have had more boats provided? - No, I do not think so. 18848. You were one of those, as the Managing Director, responsible for determining the
   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164