Page 103 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 23 - 26
P. 103
23878. This was surveying ships was it? - Yes. 23879. What previous experience had you? - Prior to that I was at sea thirteen years. 23880. As what? - An engineer. 23881. What experience have you had on the constructional side except as a Surveyor? Have you had any experience at all on the constructional side of shipbuilding, except as a Surveyor? - When I went to serve my Apprenticeship, about 12 months was spent in a Whitehaven shipyard as a shipbuilder. 23882. Apart from your experience at sea and your experience as a Surveyor, is that the whole of the experience you have had on the practical side of constructional work? - That is practically all. 23883. In the declaration you issued, in the one case you certify that the boats D of the “Titanic” were capable of accommodating 80 persons, and in another declaration you make it only 64? - Yes. 23884. How do you account for the disparity in the numbers in your certificate? - It was a clerical error in the declaration, but it was put right on the survey. It was discovered very shortly after the declaration was issued, and corrected. The Commissioner: We have had that explained before. Mr. Edwards: With respect, my Lord, I asked the Assistant-Secretary of the Board of Trade, and he said he was unable to explain it, but that the Surveyor would explain it. 23885. (The Commissioner.) No, but it was stated to me that it was a clerical error. The Witness: It was corrected almost immediately after the declaration was issued. 23886. (Mr. Edwards.) Then boat section A. In the one declaration the number of persons supposed to be accommodated is 910, and in the other declaration it is 915? - That is the same thing. 23887. That is also a clerical error? - Yes. 23888. Do these clerical errors very often happen? - No, very rarely. 23889. You told my friend that there were certain particulars in the case of the “Titanic” which you referred to London? - Yes. 23890. Now what were the matters that you referred to London? - The first thing I referred to London was the position of the collision bulkhead. 23891. Did you make any suggestion as to that? - Yes. 23892. What was the suggestion? - I sent a sketch showing the position of the bulkhead, and pointed out that it was carried forward on what is marked there “E Deck” six frame spaces instead of being carried right up to D Deck. 23893. Did you suggest that that should be altered? - No; I submitted it, and asked for instructions. Messrs. Harland and Wolff were contending that they were right and I thought they were wrong. 23894. Who would that have been submitted to in London? - It was sent to the Assistant Secretary, and from him it went to Mr. Archer, the Principal Ship Surveyor. 23895. And beyond him? - It came back to me, I think. 23896. Did he agree with Messrs. Harland’s view? - No, he thought I was right. 23897. And it was altered? - No, another arrangement was made on another bulkhead. 23898. A compensating arrangements? - Yes. 23899. What was the compensating arrangement? - In the long run it resulted in the second bulkhead being carried up to D deck. 23900. Was that submitted to London too? - It was. 23901. And did you agree that that might be done? - Yes. 23902. Did London agree that it might be done? - London agreed first. 23903. Was that decided by Mr. Archer? - Well it would be submitted by Mr. Archer to the
   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108