Page 197 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 19 - 22
P. 197
the British Board of Trade requirements, the American requirements and the German requirements. (The Commissioner.) I should like to see it,” and it was handed in. The Commissioner: I notice in the two German boats to which reference was made, there is a very large proportion of collapsible boat accommodation. 22497. (The Attorney-General.) Yes. I am not sure that is the way to get at it; it certainly is not the most reliable. We have got the requirements, and you have to calculate from those requirements what a vessel with a tonnage of 46,000 tons would have to carry in boating accommodation. I make it a very big number of boats indeed, far more than has been mentioned, and I am anxious to have it right. (To the Witness.) Will you tell me, Sir Walter, have you yourself, or somebody in the Board of Trade, made the calculations on the basis of the German requirements? - What the German requirements would have been for the “Titanic”? No, we have not. 22498. I have done it, but what I want to know is can you tell me whether in fact the German liners carry boats, speaking generally, of the number required according to the German law? - No, I cannot say. Sir Robert Finlay: It is extremely important to know what the practice is. The Attorney-General: And that is why I was drawing the distinction between the statement of requirements and facts. The Commissioner: I quite appreciate that. That is why you criticise Mr. Maurice Hill. The Attorney-General: Yes. (After a short adjournment.) The Attorney-General: My Lord, I have now got the minute from the Board of Trade, which I will read. The Commissioner: You mean the minute of the 4th of April, 1912? 22499. (The Attorney-General.) Yes. The minute of the 4th of April, of Sir Walter Howell’s is: “I agree to the action proposed.” Then there is a note of Captain Young’s of the 28th of March, and there is also a note of G. E. B. That is Mr. Baker. (To the Witness.) Mr. Baker is your principal clerk? - In the Marine Department. 22500. You have looked at this, I think? - Yes. 22501. Is this what you referred to when you said you gave directions on April 4th for that letter which was subsequently sent on April 16th? - Yes. 22502. Was any other direction than that given before the letter of April 16th was sent? - No direction whatever. 22503. So that the letter of April 16th, according to that, would be carrying out the directions which you had given on April 4th? - Precisely. 22504. Is that how it stands? - That is exactly how it stands. 22505. So that it would follow from that that when the letter was sent on April 16th no alteration was made in that letter in consequence of the loss of the “Titanic”? - Not the slightest alteration. 22506. It was simply carrying out what had been directed on April 4th? - Exactly. 22507. And nothing else? - And nothing else. th 22508. Then, as I read to my Lord, there is a letter on April 20 , which does refer to the loss of the “Titanic”? - Exactly. 22509. And is that the first letter there is, and the first reference in any way to the loss of the “Titanic”? - Quite. 22510. Would the letter of 16th April be a letter drafted in accordance with the directions which had been given which would appear on the minute? - Exactly.
   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202