Page 69 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 19 - 22
P. 69
boat down on the top of the blades and smash her up. 20969. This vessel, I think, was fitted with the Morse system and with the submarine signaling apparatus? - With Morse flashing lamps, one on each side of the bridge; and also the submarine signaling apparatus in the fore-hold. 20970. Have you anything you can tell us bearing on the question of the advisability of fitting searchlights on a ship? - If you only want to look straight ahead of you, as, for example, in the Suez Canal, a searchlight is a very useful thing; but if you want to be able to see all round, for over a considerable arc, whilst objects in the way of the searchlights are well lit, it is much more difficult with a searchlight going to see boats that are not directly in its beam than if it is not lit. 20971. Do you think that a searchlight carried on a vessel such as the “Titanic” is likely to interfere with her coloured lights being seen by any vessel approaching her? - Undoubtedly. But of course if the searchlight is lit it would be a very conspicuous thing. 20972. Have you got a case in your mind where searchlights were tried on a steamer in the North Atlantic trade? - Yes; I know one case which I remember very well. 20973. Were they kept on or removed? - They were removed within twelve months. 20974. (The Commissioner.) Why? - I never really heard why. I believe from my memory of the statement made - it is a good many years ago now - that they were removed because they were found to be useless; but I would not like to be quite sure upon that. 20975. What ship were they used on? - The “City of Paris,” as she then was, and the “City of New York.” 20976. (Mr. Laing.) She is one of the American Liners? - They are two ships of the American Line. 20977. (Sir Robert Finlay.) In the passage I was referring to, as bearing on the question of No. 4, at the bottom of the first column on page 517, there is a word, I think, misprinted in the transcript. Perhaps Mr. Wilding will be able to correct it if it is wrong. It is in the answer to Question 20347: “From a calculation, which I will refer to in a moment, I cannot believe that the wound was absolutely continuous the whole way. I believe that it was in a series of steps.” My recollection is that he said “stabs.” The Witness: I said steps. Sir Robert Finlay: I took it down as stabs, and I thought “steps” was a mistake; but what follows makes it quite clear that “stabs” is what is meant, because it goes on; “and that from what we heard Barrett say in his evidence it was the end of one of the series of wounds which flooded the different spaces; that before the ship finally cleared the iceberg, as the helm was put over, she would be tending to swing her side into the iceberg, and that a very light contact was made in No. 4” The Commissioner: That again points to an external injury in No. 4. Examined by Mr. ROWLATT. 20978. You said to my learned friend, Mr. Laing, that your view was that increased floatation was more desirable than increased boat accommodation, with a view to saving life in these big ships? - Yes. 20979. Do I understand that you propose to increase the floatation over the floatation that there was in the “Titanic”? - I think it would be a very desirable thing to do. 20980. Have you in mind how you propose to do it? - That is a matter that can hardly be answered offhand. It will have to be looked into, certainly. 20981-2. You are not prepared to say whether you will carry the bulkheads higher? - No. The Commissioner: I understand the witness to say that, having regard to the circumstances of this case, he thinks that the object now ought to be, not to increase the lifeboats, but to increase
   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74