British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 31
Final Arguments, cont.
The Commissioner:
It may be. Of course, if it is written in English, and this is the expression in it, there is nothing in the contention.
The Attorney-General:
If you look at the letter it makes it clear that this is a summary. My Lord has not got the letter yet.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Your Lordship will find it about the middle of the bundle. All the letters are annexed. It is headed "Bremen," and is addressed to "Messrs. Keller, Wallis and Co., London." We duly received your favour of the 7th instant and enclosed letter of the Board of Trade of the 6th instant. We have made all the enquiries we could since, and beg to answer to the questions as follows: (a.) The original telegrams received by those of our steamers that were in the Western Atlantic when the "Titanic" disaster happened have been delivered to the Supreme Court, London, by the Marconi Company already. (b.) Our steamers were going full speed as long as the weather kept clear. The s.s. "Bremen" reduced to eight knots on the 20th of April from 2.20 to 4.20 a.m. in the ice region, because it was rainy weather. (c.) Our Captains are bound to keep the track, though they have the right to leave it as soon as they think it being necessary for the safety of the ship." I think this bears clear evidence, my Lord, of it having been written in English by a German.
The Commissioner:
Does it not bear evidence of having been written in German and translated by an Englishman?
Sir Robert Finlay:
No, my Lord, because an Englishman would not have said "As soon as they think it being necessary." He would have said, "As soon as they think it necessary for the safety of the ship." "We put it to the own judgment of our Captains" - here again that is German-English - "to alter their course, reduce speed, or take any other precautions they think necessary for a safe navigation. We include Nr. 215 of 'Der Leuchtturm,' in which there is on page 857 an article giving true and full information on this object."
The Commissioner:
This letter has been written by a German who has a far better knowledge of English than most Englishmen have of German.
Sir Robert Finlay:
It is quite intelligible.
The Commissioner:
What is the article in "Der Leuchtturm"?
Sir Robert Finlay:
It is on the next page; it is rather long.
The Commissioner:
Has anyone read it?
Sir Robert Finlay:
I have glanced over it, and it did not strike me as being very illuminating - not as illuminating as the title of the periodical. I will just read a few sentences and any more that my friend desires.
The Attorney-General:
I do not think it helps at all.
The Commissioner:
I have looked through it, and I did not notice anything that would assist us.
The Attorney-General:
It does not tell us anything we did not know.
Sir Robert Finlay:
We have had so much read that unless it is necessary I will not read it.
Now, my Lord, I propose to call attention to the evidence of Sir Ernest Shackleton, but perhaps I had better take Mr. Rostron's evidence first.
The Commissioner:
This evidence of Captain Rostron appears to me to be important.
Sir Robert Finlay:
If your Lordship pleases, I will take it now. His evidence begins at page 740. A great deal of his evidence is directed to matters of fact with which we have nothing to do. I rather think that I had better read some evidence on page 742, although what is directly relevant on this point is on page 745. I think you will agree that that is a convenient course.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, I think so.
Sir Robert Finlay:
It will save reading it again afterwards. He says at the very bottom of page 741: "(Q.) 25405. And you intended, as I follow you, to pick her up on the port bow? - (A.) Yes, on the port side; that was the lee-side; but just after I saw his light I saw an iceberg right ahead. Then, of course, I starboarded - I could not port - to get away from the berg; so I starboarded to make it more convenient for the boat I was going to pick up, and I picked it up on the starboard side. (Q.) How close was the iceberg which you saw? - (A.) Well, when we had stopped, when daylight broke, it was something less than a quarter of a mile away. (Q.) I should like to follow that to understand it. Had you seen that iceberg before? - (A.) No, it was the first I saw of it. We were close up before we saw it. (Q.) Was day breaking at all? - (A.) No, it was perfectly dark at the time. (Q.) And you had men on the look-out? - (A.) Yes, we had doubled our look-outs. (Q.) Had you men in the crow's-nest? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) When you say you doubled the look-out, does that mean you had also men in the eyes of the vessel? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Right on the stem? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Two? - (A.) Two, and one on the look-out, one in the crows-nest, and two in the eyes. (Q.) Is that your practice? - (A.) No, we have one in the crow's-nest and one forward. (Q.) Your practice is to have one in the crow's-nest and one forward? - (A.) At night. (Q.) Do you take any particular precautions if you have received ice reports? - (A.) Always. (Q.) Is that what you do? - (A.) Yes, immediately I started round, before I knew we should be up to the ice; in fact, as soon as I got this report, and I had put her on the course for the "Titanic's" position, I doubled the look-outs at once, and took all the precautions I possibly could. (Q.) Was that the first iceberg that you had seen? - (A.) Oh, dear, no. (Q.) I mean on this particular night? - (A.) Oh, no; the first iceberg we saw was at a quarter to 3. (Q.) I wanted you to tell us about that. You saw one at a quarter to 3? - (A.) We saw about half-a-dozen - in fact, more than that. I was moving about to get between them up to 4 o'clock. (Q.) No ice-field? - (A.) No ice-field. We were not up to the ice-field then. (Q.) Only icebergs. Take the first one you saw about a quarter to 3; how far off was it when you first saw it - when it was reported to you? - (A.) I should think it was about a mile and a half to two miles away. (Q.) And with regard to the others, I think you say you saw about six up to 4 o'clock? - (A.) Yes, about six. (Q.) Did you see all those at about the same distance? - (A.) Yes, about the same distance - from one to two miles. (Q.) Then, I understand, when you came to the last one - you will correct this if I am wrong - as far as I gather from your evidence, you did not see that till it was somewhere about a quarter of a mile off? - (A.) That is so; at daybreak I saw it was between 25 and 30 feet high. (Q.) Will you explain to us a little more in detail why it was that you did not see this iceberg, the one which you found about 4 o'clock, earlier? - (A.) I cannot tell you, we were all on the look-out. (Q.) It was rather low? - (A.) It was low. (Q.) Twenty-five to 30 feet. I do not know whether you can tell us what the height of your forecastle was from the waterline? - (A.) Yes, the forecastle head would be just about 30 feet. (Q.) Your two men were on the look-out, then, in the eyes of the vessel? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) No report had been made to you? - (A.) No. (Q.) Who was it saw it first, do you know? - (A.) Yes, I saw it first. (Q.) Before the look-out men? - (A.) Yes, we saw all the icebergs first from the bridge. (The Commissioner.) I do not understand that. (The Attorney-General.) You were on the bridge with your Officers, I presume? - (A.) Yes, the whole time. (Q.) And each time, if I follow you, that an iceberg was seen, you picked it up first on your bridge? - (A.) Either one of my Officers or myself, before the look-outs. (Q.) Did you pick it up by sight, or by naked eye, or with binoculars? - (A.) At first with the naked eye. (Q.) Do you find that you pick them up better with the naked eye than with binoculars? - (A.) It all depends. Sometimes yes, at other times not; it depends. (Q.) How was it neither of the look-out men saw it or reported it to you? Why did not they see it before you? - (A.) Well, of course, they had all had warning about keeping a look-out for growlers and icebergs previous to going on the look-out, and on the look-out, also, you must understand, unless you know what you are looking for, if you see some very dim, indistinct shape of some kind, anyone could take that as nothing at all. Merely some shadow upon the water, or something of that kind; but people with experience of ice know what to look for, and can at once distinguish that it is a separate object on the water, and it must be only one thing, and that is ice. (Q.) So that what it really comes to is this, if I follow you correctly, that it requires a man with some knowledge of icebergs, some experience of picking them up, before he can detect them at night? - (A.) Precisely. (Q.) That is to say, before he could detect them unless they were very close to him? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Do you employ on the "Carpathia" special look-out men or are they some of your seamen who are told off as look-out men? - (A.) No, the seamen take it in turns, the whole watch right through. There are no special look-out men." That, my Lord, was with reference to the evidence we have had that on the "Titanic" there were special look-out men employed. "25441. So far as you know, had any of these men any experience in being amongst icebergs? - (A.) Not to my knowledge, but I should imagine some of them must have had, because several of them have been in the Cunard Company for years. (Q.) On this North Atlantic track? - (A.) Oh, yes. (Q.) And if they had been on this track for some years they must have seen icebergs? - (A.) I think so, yes, they must have done. (Q.) Does it mean that on your bridge you and your Officers were quicker at detecting them than any of the men on the look-out? - (A.) Well, about 75 percent of the objects that are seen at sea every day or night are picked up from the bridge first. Naturally the Officer will take more interest in these things than a look-out man. I always trust to the bridge preferably to the men. (The Commissioner.) That is the point I had in my mind. I do not see any advantage in putting men in the eyes of the ship if you can pick up things from the bridge before them? - (A.) It does not necessarily say we shall pick them up quicker from the bridge, but naturally an Officer is more on the qui vive - he is keener on his work than a man would be, and he knows what to look for. He is more intelligent than a sailor. (The Attorney-General.) And he has to act? - (A.) He has to act, certainly. (Q.) He relies upon his eyesight, assisted by the look-out? - (A.) Yes, that is the position; we are assisted by the look-outs. (Q.) If I followed correctly what you said, you rely in the main upon what is seen from the bridge by the Officers? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Of course, it may be that the Officer is, for the moment, attending to something else - his attention may be distracted by something else which is happening, and in that case he would have to depend on the look-out? - (A.) Well, the only thing is, supposing an Officer is looking on the port side and there is an object on the starboard side, and the seaman happens to be looking on the starboard side, naturally he might detect it first and he would report it." In passing may I suggest that is a reason for having two men in the crow's-nest - that you would be able to cover a wider field, the one looking on the port side and the other on the starboard side? Two pairs of eyes will cover a wider range than one pair might: "25450. (The Commissioner.) Were you on the bridge? - (A.) I was. (Q.) You cannot account to me for your seeing some of these bergs a couple of miles away, but not seeing this particular one till it was about a quarter of a mile away? - (A.) No. (Q.) You cannot account for it? - (A.) No. (Q.) It happened to yourself? - (A.) I cannot account for it at all. (Q.) It did happen to yourself? - (A.) Yes, it did happen." I submit that is a very important answer, my Lord. "25451. (The Attorney-General.) That would seem to indicate a considerable risk in going through the ice region, does it not? - (A.) Yes. (The Commissioner.) Is that a common experience, that when you are amongst icebergs you will detect one two or three miles away, and another not till it is within a quarter of a mile. Is that within your experience? - (A.) No, I do not think it is common experience. I think it is rather uncommon, as a matter of fact. (The Attorney-General.) Rather uncommon? - (A.) I think so. (Q.) I want to understand this a little more if we can.
If I correctly followed you, you said you only saw this one at about a quarter of a mile distance from you by the streak of a star upon it? - (A.) No, the first one I saw was about one and a half to two miles away; that was the one we saw at about a quarter to three, with the streak of the star. That was the first one we picked up; it was a large one. (Q.) That one we understand, but this last one that you saw about 4 o'clock. When you were getting ready to pick up the boat on the port side, was there anything at all special about the colour of that iceberg? - (A.) No, but I suppose it must have been because of the shadow or something of that kind, that we could not make it out before. I cannot account for it. (Q.) Does it sometimes happen? - (A.) Yes, very often. (Q.) It may be the iceberg presents to you a luminous appearance? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Or it may be it presents to you a dark appearance? - (A.) Exactly. (Q.) That is what you would ordinarily expect when you are looking out for icebergs, is it? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) You cannot tell from which side you are going to see it? - (A.) No. (Q.) Or how it is going to present itself to you in appearance? - (A.) No. (Q.) So that if I follow what you have said, you would always have to be prepared for an iceberg which presented a dark appearance to those who were looking out for it? - (A.) Yes. (The Commissioner.) I do not understand where the shadow comes from; there is nothing to create a shadow. There were no clouds in the sky? - (A.) No, my Lord, there were no clouds, but the shape of the iceberg itself might account for it. Now, this iceberg was about 30 feet high and the sides were rather precipitous. If the side had been more of a slope, do not you think that slope would have given off some shadow. If you have a greater surface and there is anything in the theory about 'blink,' you would have more blink if you had a greater surface, and so you might have a dark place if the iceberg itself had a crevice in it or a break. I can imagine that, but I do not know where the shadow comes from. (The Attorney-General.) I do not profess to know sufficiently about it. It may depend upon the angle of refraction - I do not profess to be able to explain it better than that. (To the Witness.) At what speed were you going when you saw this iceberg about a quarter of a mile from you? - (A.) I should think we were making something about 15; the engines had been stopped for about three minutes - probably between 13 and 15 knots at the time. (Q.) But slowing all the time? - (A.) Oh, it was slowing all the time - yes"; and so on. I do not think I need read any more upon that page. Then I turn on to page 745, the very first Question on that page.
The Attorney-General:
I think, Sir Robert, you might read the next three or four questions.
Sir Robert Finlay:
On page 743?
The Attorney-General:
Yes. You broke off for a moment to go to something else, and then you got back to the iceberg. You will find it at the bottom, at 25470.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I will read it with pleasure. "25470. Will you tell me, when you starboarded, how close did you get to the iceberg? - (A.) When daylight broke I consider the iceberg was then a little under a quarter of a mile away. (Q.) I am not quite sure that we have got it correctly yet. When you saw this iceberg I rather understood that it was then about a quarter of a mile away from you? - (A.) Between a quarter and half a mile. (Q.) Then you say, although your engines had stopped and had been stopped for something like three minutes, you were still making somewhere about 13 to 15 knots? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Then I want to know how close it was - you had an iceberg within your range of vision, then - you went to the iceberg when you starboarded? - (A.) This was the boat over here. (Describing.) I did not know the distance off. Here was the iceberg right ahead. I was coming along there; I saw the iceberg right ahead here, and I saw the light was on my port bow. Of course, I could not see the boat itself, but only the light when he showed the flare. I came along here and starboarded, and brought her here. Then I saw the light on my starboard side. I saw the light showing; it was getting close. I went full speed astern. I went a little bit past the boat before I could get the way off the ship, and I came back again, because they sang out from the boat that they had only one seaman, and could not handle her. I brought the ship back to the boat. When the boat was alongside of me daylight broke, and I found the berg was about a quarter of a mile off. (Q.) Had you been any closer to the berg than that? - (A.) No, that was the closest I had been. (Q.) That answers what I wanted to know. Bearing round like that in answering the helm, she was still about a quarter of a mile from you? - (A.) Yes." That finishes it on that page. Then, my Lord, I turn to page 745, the first Question on the page, "25516. I am dealing with the number of icebergs you saw. From a quarter to 3 to 4 o'clock you picked up with the eye six icebergs? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) When it cleared up and got daylight, and you were more or less in the same place, you found yourself surrounded by icebergs? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) You have told us there were a great many, and some of them 150 to 200 feet high? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) But the point I wanted to be quite clear about was that these icebergs must have been close to you without your seeing them? - (A.) They must have been, yes. (Q.) I wanted to know if you could tell us how far off the nearest one was, leaving out the one which was only a quarter of a mile from you, of which you have told us in detail. How far off was the nearest berg, so far as you can tell us, of 150 to 200 feet high, when full daylight came and you could see plainly? - (A.) Somewhere about three or four miles. (Q.) That would be about the closest? - (A.) Yes, that would be about the nearest. (Q.) That would seem to indicate that it must have been particularly difficult to pick them up by the eye that night? - (A.) Under certain circumstances, yes. Of course, it all depends what you are looking for. If you know what you are looking for you pick them up better than a man who does not know what he is looking for. (Q.) Was there anything, so far as you know, peculiar in the atmospheric conditions that night? - (A.) No, I never saw a clearer night. It was a beautiful night." I call your Lordship's attention to that particular answer, in view of the evidence about which we have heard a great deal, and which may be referred to a great deal more - the evidence of the look-out men as to haze: "I never saw a clearer night. It was a beautiful night."
The Commissioner:
For myself I do not believe there was a haze at all. There may have been a haze of a foot or two at the base of the berg.
The Attorney-General:
I think, my Lord, I may save time if I say this. I have looked into this evidence very carefully; and particularly in view of what my friend Mr. Scanlan said - he directed attention to all the particular portions of evidence which bear upon this - I am not going to ask your Lordship to say (I do not think on the evidence one can ask your Lordship to say) that there was a haze. I think the evidence on that point is the other way, so far as it is material to this particular point.
The Commissioner:
I am quite satisfied on that.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I think the haze was a myth, possibly originating in a black berg coming out of the blackness, and that one of the look-out men thus developed the theory of a haze; but I need not trouble about that after what has been said.
The Commissioner:
I do not think so.
Sir Robert Finlay:
"I never saw a clearer night. It was a beautiful night. (Q.) So far as you could see, you ought to have been able to pick them up easily, or comparatively easily? - (A.) Comparatively easily, yes. (Q.) If you are looking out for them? - (A.) If you are looking out for them. (Q.) If you are not particularly directing your attention to picking up icebergs, you might not see them, although they are close to you? - (A.) That is so. May I give you one more instance? (Q.) Yes, do? - (A.) We starboarded for this iceberg, which we saw ahead. When daylight broke and we were picking up the passengers from the first boat, I was looking round, and 200 yards on my port quarters I saw a lump of ice 20 feet long and 10 feet high, which we had not seen at all. (Q.) I think there is only one other matter I want to ask you about. You have navigated for a good many years on this North Atlantic track? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) And you have often seen icebergs on this track? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Have you seen them during this particular month, April, on this track? - (A.) I never remember seeing ice in April on the track. (Q.) Supposing you had had a wireless message giving you the position of icebergs, and an ice-field or ice-fields, which you would reach in the ordinary course of things within a few hours, what precautions would you take when approaching that region, if any? - (A.) A great deal would depend. Do you mean at nighttime? (Q.) Yes? - (A.) Well, it is very hard to say what I should do, but I think I should do my best to get out of it, to avoid that position. But if an iceberg is reported it is no use altering your course and trying to avoid it when you do not know where it is. From the time it was reported near the vessel it may have drifted four or five or ten miles, and you might as well keep on your proper course. But if it is an extensive ice-field, we know it covers some area, and of course with an ice-field, I think I should try to get out of it; otherwise I do not know. (Q.) You mean you would not go out of your course? - (A.) Yes, for an ice-field, but for an iceberg, no. I do not think I should. I should rely upon keeping a look-out, and the weather and things of that kind. (Q.) You would attempt to keep out of the way of ice-fields and alter your course, but for icebergs you would go on your course and depend upon picking them up with your eye, and then avoiding them when you have picked them up? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) I think you have already told me, but I should like to make quite sure of it, that you would take special precautions with regard to the look-out by putting men in the eyes of the vessel? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) When you had an ice report? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) As well as having a man in the crow's-nest? - (A.) Yes. (The Commissioner.) Do you put two men in the crow's-nest, or one? - (A.) I only put one. (The Attorney-General.) And two in the eyes? - (A.) Yes. (The Commissioner.) In the "Titanic" they had two in the crow's-nest, and it occurred to me it would be almost better to have only one. I do not know whether that is right. (The Attorney-General.) The same idea in your Lordship's mind would apply to the two men in the eyes. (The Commissioner.) I am not sure. (The Attorney-General.) They cannot talk so easily, I agree. (The Commissioner.) In the crow's-nest they are rubbing shoulder to shoulder. (The Attorney-General.) Yes, it is not quite so easy, I agree. (To the Witness.) I have one other matter I want to know. Supposing you had had a report of the character that I have indicated to you of icebergs and an ice-field in the regions which you are bound to cross, when you approach that region, would you take any precautions with regard to the safety of your vessel? - (A.) Well, a great deal would depend on the weather and the atmospheric conditions. (The Commissioner.) Suppose it is perfectly clear? - (A.) If it is a perfectly clear night, and I was sure of my position and everything else, unless I knew there was a lot of ice about, I should feel perfectly justified in going full speed. (The Attorney-General.) But if you thought there was a lot of ice about you would not do it, I gather? - (A.) No, I would not. For one or two bergs I should feel perfectly justified in going full speed. (The Commissioner.) I suppose it is a matter for the judgment of the man in charge of the ship? - (A.) Absolutely. (The Attorney-General.) Which again, I suppose, must depend upon the atmospheric conditions as to whether he can see clearly ahead? - (A.) Yes. We have to take a whole lot of things into consideration in a thing of that kind. It is not one or two; it is many." Then some questions are put to him by myself. The first passage I have read with regard to the practice at sea, and I do not think there is any other question asked that I need read. That practically ends the evidence of Mr. Rostron upon this point. So that your Lordship sees that Mr. Rostron agrees with the evidence that we have had. He says if it was a clear night he was perfectly justified in going full speed, and then he describes what his practice would be with regard to the course. He says an iceberg is a moving object, so that it is no use altering your course because you are told there is an iceberg ahead of you; by the time you have got to that spot it will have moved on just as a crossing ship would. With regard to field ice, it is another matter, because that may occupy an extensive area, and it may be desirable to alter your course to keep out of the way of field ice altogether. So that I therefore submit, my Lord, that the evidence of Mr. Rostron - although he was called primarily on another point - as a gentleman of great experience, strongly confirms the evidence given by all those who were in this trade, and whose evidence he in no respect contradicts, but agrees with.
The Attorney-General:
I only want to say, in case my friend may think that I agree with what he says, that I do not agree with that. My view is that Captain Rostron's evidence does not agree with the evidence of the other Captains who have been called. I think it is different in very material respects in the passages that have been read by my friend. I agree with a great deal of the comment that my friend has been making with regard to the other Captains' evidence - there are one or two observations I shall make when I come to deal with that - but substantially, as I said in an earlier stage of the case, I agree that the evidence he has called of the Captains, does show that their practice is to continue at full speed, provided it is a clear night and they can see ahead.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Certainly, and Mr. Rostron does not contradict it.
The Attorney-General:
I do not agree.
The Commissioner:
He qualifies it.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I should be glad if the Attorney-General would call my attention to the passage in which it appears that he does qualify it.
The Attorney-General:
I have read it. First of all he qualifies it by saying, if he knows there is a lot of ice about, that would make a difference, and then he says, "If I knew there were one or two bergs it would make no difference." But obviously he thinks that if he knew of more than that - that there was more ice about than that - it would make a difference. The question is, I think, substantially the question put by my Lord at 25541. Perhaps it would be better just to read the question before, so that my friend may see the point I am relying upon. And, my Lord, I would add also, before I read this - I am not going through the evidence in detail of Captain Rostron on it - I rely very strongly upon what he actually saw - I am going to comment on that and upon his indication and statement in evidence of what he had seen before with regard to icebergs of darker colour. But that is general. That is the evidence which I shall rely upon when we come to discuss the question as to whether there was anything abnormal in meeting what I will call - and I think accurately - a dark looking iceberg; that is a question which, of course, will form the subject of a good deal of discussion.
The Commissioner:
Are you going to suggest that the circumstances on this night were not abnormal?
The Attorney-General:
Do you mean of the weather?
The Commissioner:
Yes, I do.
The Attorney-General:
No.
The Commissioner:
I mean the atmospheric conditions in which it was necessary to look-out and detect the iceberg. The effect on my mind of this evidence is this, that there was a combination of circumstances on this night of very rare occurrence, which made it extremely difficult to ascertain with certainty the position of any ice of any kind.
The Attorney-General:
If I may say so, without putting it quite as high as your Lordship does, I agree. My view is also that there was certainly a combination of circumstances in this case which were exceptional, that is to say, they were out of the ordinary. But I want to indicate this also, so that my friend may know the argument - which I have no doubt he already does from the questions which I have put - that I am going to address to your Lordship. My submission will be that, notwithstanding they were not ordinary conditions, they were conditions against which it behoved a prudent man to guard; and I wanted to add that the moment they knew that the conditions were exceptional - although I agree that on Mr. Rostron's evidence he did not know that there was no swell - yet those circumstances of which he did know necessitated, I am going to submit, extreme care, and may I add one thing further - that the highest standard of care apart altogether from the particular conditions of this night must be applied to a case of this kind in a passenger vessel like the "Titanic." Those are general observations which I indicate to my friend of course for the purpose of his dealing with them.
But the question I am upon now is as to what a prudent Commander would do if he had had ice reports, and that, my Lord, is to be found at Question 25540, where I put this question to him: "Supposing you had had a report of the character that I have indicated to you of icebergs and an ice-field in the regions which you are bound to cross, when you approach that region, would you take any precautions with regard to the safety of your vessel? - (A.) Well, a great deal would depend on the weather and the atmospheric conditions. (The Commissioner.) Suppose it is perfectly clear? - (A.) If it is a perfectly clear night, and I was sure of my position and everything else, unless I knew there was a lot of ice about, I should feel perfectly justified in going full speed." I say that is a very qualified answer, or a qualified answer as compared with that of some of the other Captains. Then I will read again the question put to him by me: "But if you thought there was a lot of ice about you would not do it, I gather? - (A.) No, I would not for one or two bergs. I should feel perfectly justified in going full speed."
The Commissioner:
And you will not forget this, that assuming as I do - and I think you think I ought to do it - that the only three messages which ought to be taken into account are the three that I have already mentioned.
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
The Captain of the "Titanic" would imagine himself to be out of the field or region in which the ice was advised - South of it. He would imagine himself to be South of the region. You will not forget that because it seems to be relevant having regard to what you have just read in Mr. Rostron's evidence, in which he says: "If I knew that I was" -
The Attorney-General:
"Sure of my position and everything else."
The Commissioner:
"Unless I knew there was a lot of ice about." Of course, I do not know what "about" means; I must use my own discretion about that. It may mean to the North or the South; it may not mean exactly in his course. "About," that is to say, ice that may possibly come into his course.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, I shall argue, when I come to deal with the question, that, apart altogether from the question of whether the "Titanic" would, if she had pursued her course without alteration along this track, have come within the region of the icebergs and ice-field as reported to her; that, apart altogether from that, supposing that the Captain was right - I am assuming this because of an argument which my learned friend has indicated -
The Commissioner:
You are helping me very much in indicating to Sir Robert what it is you are going to say.
Continued >
