Page 67 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 23 - 26
P. 67
officers. Two other officers were appealed to besides you. 23372. (The Commissioner.) Let me be clear about this. Do the figures you have just given us relate to boats of 45,000 or to 50,000 tons? - 45,000 tons to 50,000 tons. 23373. Then the figures relate to boats of 45,000 tons? - Yes, they do, from 45,000 to 50,000. 23374. And therefore would relate to a vessel of the size of the “Titanic”? - They would, my Lord, yes. 23375. (Mr. Scanlan.) Now, with regard to the other recommendations made, from London and Glasgow. Perhaps you will tell me how their recommendations compare with yours, if you can give us the figures? - I have not got the figures here. But I may as well say that the London Principal Officer agreed very fairly with these figures, but the Glasgow Principal Officer was considerably below. The Attorney-General: I will have these documents got, the reports of the other officers. I had not intended to call them, and I do not think it is any use to call them, because the only point is what report they made. 23376. (Mr. Scanlan.) I will take it that one officer agreed with you, and the estimate of the other was lower. Now on those reports what happened, to whom were they submitted? - They were submitted to the Assistant Secretary of the Marine Department and also from him to the Professional Advisor. 23377. (The Commissioner.) Will you give those gentlemen’s names? - Sir Walter Howell and finally to Sir Alfred Chalmers. 23378. (Mr. Scanlan.) Have you the minute relating to the submission of those reports and stating what effect, if any, was given to them? I want to know how those reports were dealt with? - They were commented upon by the professional member, Sir Alfred Chalmers, and it was decided to make certain recommendations to the Advisory Committee; but in order to give the Advisory Committee a free hand and get an unbiased opinion, which would assist us in the matter, we did not deem it desirable to hand on the reports of our officers. 23379. I want to know what those gentlemen you have told us of decided on those reports? - The Advisory Committee or the Department? 23380. The Department of the Board of Trade? - As I say, they decided that it was a matter which should be submitted to the Advisory Committee. 23381. You agreed to produce the minute. Does the minute which you were asked to produce and which I understand you have there? - Yes. 23382. Contain the decision of those gentlemen? - I do not think it does; no, I have not it on these minutes. 23383. (The Attorney-General.) I think I have it. Just look at this. It looks to me like Sir Walter Howell’s initial, 24th March, beginning: “We may now send this matter to the Advisory Committee” (Handing same to the Witness.)? - Yes, this is quite correct. This is the minute dealing with the matter. 23384. (Mr. Scanlan.) Read to my Lord the portion of the Minute which gives the decision arrived at by Sir Alfred Chalmers and Sir Walter Howell on this matter, on the report submitted? - Certainly. On the 24th March, 1911, Sir Alfred Chalmers wrote: “I have gone carefully into all these reports and tables submitted by Mr. Archer and the Principal Officers of Liverpool, London and Glasgow, and on full consideration of all the particulars, and bearing in mind that the scale of the original Life-saving Appliances Committee, which was required to be extended, should be extended consistently and with due regard to the capabilities of the large ships, which do not increase at all in proportion to the increase of tonnage, I am of opinion that the scale submitted by the Principal Officer of Glasgow should quite meet the necessities of the case” - 23385. (The Commissioner.) That is the smaller scale? - Yes. The Commissioner: Therefore, it is a little important that we should know what that gentleman did recommend. Mr. Scanlan: I was going to ask for that now. 23386. (The Attorney-General.) Let him finish what he is reading first.
   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72