Page 75 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 23 - 26
P. 75
23456. (The Commissioner.) Is it an additional safeguard? - It is an adjunct, and it may be so considered, but it is not absolutely essential. 23457. No, but is desirable. I should say at present that it is not, but you may think differently, and I want to know what you think? - I do not think differently, because in my experience of binoculars I have far oftener relied on the unassisted eye than anything else. 23458. It occurs to me that a man in the crow’s-nest has nothing to do with binoculars; he has to use his eyes and pick up lights and report them to the bridge, and the man on the bridge uses binoculars if he wishes. I should have thought instead of being an assistance it is a distraction to have binoculars? - It is to a certain extent, but there is another feature connected with it, that when a man is looking through his binoculars his field of vision is necessarily restricted. A man may frequently pass a dark boat with his binoculars which he would readily pick up if his eyes were open to a wider field, because he would have a greater expanse of the atmosphere, say, or the horizon, to compare the object with, which would give him a distinct lead. 23459. (Mr. Scanlan.) After all that, is it your opinion that it is desirable to provide binoculars for look-out men? - No. Examined by Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS. 23460. There is one point I want to get cleared up at once. As I understand from what you have read, your report went to the Marine Department of the Board of Trade together with a report from the London District Official, and the Glasgow District Official, and that Sir Alfred Chalmers made a note to the effect that only the Glasgow scale recommendation should go to the Advisory Committee? - No, he did not make a note of that sort. He only made a note to the Department to the effect that he preferred that - not that that recommendation was to go to the Advisory Committee. 23461. What I want to get at is that he made a note suggesting that the only one of the scales - that is to say yours, Glasgow’s, and London - was the Glasgow one which should go to the Advisory Committee? - That it should be considered under those circumstances, but it was not, as a matter of fact, sent to the Committee. Would you mind giving me the note? The Attorney-General: I have it. This is not the thing apparently sent, but it is what my learned friend means: “I am of opinion that the scale submitted by the Principal Officer for Glasgow should quite meet the necessities of the case, and should be the one submitted to the Advisory Committee for their guidance.” 23462. (Mr. Clement Edwards - To the Witness.) Is it within your knowledge or not that that scale, and that scale alone, was submitted by the Marine Department of the Board of Trade to the Advisory Committee? - No, I do not think it was submitted to the Advisory Committee. 23463. Can you tell me what is the scale that is referred to in the letter to the Advisory Committee? The Attorney-General: Will you look at it? - I have read it. You have not the document before you. It is a blank scale. The scale is at the bottom. 23464. (Mr. Clement Edwards.) If that is so, it is all right, but I want to get it quite clear. (To the Witness.) Then that apparently is the scale referred to? - Yes. 23465. Do you, of your own knowledge, know whether the Glasgow scale was submitted to the Advisory Committee? - No, I do not think it was submitted to the Advisory Committee. 23466. Do you know? - To the best of my recollection the Committee were not sent any particular scale from us, because, after consideration, it was decided - I am only going from the previous history according to my recollection - that it was not advisable to influence them in any way. 23467. Let us be perfectly clear and precise upon this point. Do you, of your own knowledge, know whether, in accordance with that minute, the scale from Glasgow was submitted to the Advisory Committee? - No, I do not know.
   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80