British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 31
Final Arguments, cont.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Question 14296. - "(Mr. Scanlan.) If he did it frequently in a journey, would not the commendation take the form at the end of the voyage of paying him off and dispensing with his services? - (A.) Not at all. The man is not an absolute fool; he knows that if he is trying to keep a good look-out, particularly amongst ice, and he suspects he sees anything, he will strike the bell, if it turns out to be nothing he may come on the bridge and say, 'I am sorry that I struck the bell when there was nothing,' but he is invariably told, 'Never you mind, if you suspect that you see anything, strike the bell, no matter how often.'" That, I think, makes the matter perfectly clear.
Then Question 25127 on page 723, "(Q.) I am not quite following you, I am afraid. Do you want to convey this to me that that berg would be within one hundred feet of the stem of the ship before it would be seen? - (A.) No. I should think a berg of that type would be seen somewhere about perhaps three quarters of a mile away, not more. (Q.) Well, three-quarters of a mile - would it be less than three-quarters of a mile? - (A.) It might be; I do not know. (Q.) I am putting one hundred feet to you. - (A.) I think it ought to be seen long before 100 feet. (Q.) What would you say would be the shortest distance that this berg would be seen by the men in the crow's-nest on a clear night? - (A.) The shortest distance from the ship? (Q.) Yes, on a perfectly clear night, and under these conditions of a flat sea and possibly black ice? - (A.) I would not like to express an opinion because I have never actually seen a berg so close to a ship. I have never seen any ice quite exactly like that which was described. I have seen it in the winter time in the ice, but then we were always absolutely stationary. (Q.) My difficulty is this, and I am afraid you cannot help me, but I cannot understand how the men in the crow's-nest and the men on the bridge - there were two I think, one, at all events, on the bridge - failed to see this iceberg until it was practically in contact with the ship? - (A.) I think that iceberg was such a very little thing. It was such a small thing and the conditions were so bad, that a man on watch, even two hours on watch, might have his eyes strained, and the Officer on watch might have his eyes strained and might just miss that particular berg. In running round the horizon his eyes might hop over this particular thing. (Q.) But there were three pairs of eyes, there was a man on the bridge and two men in the crow's-nest? - (A.) I think that is a possibility. (Q.) Is it a probability? - (A.) I think it is a probability. I think they might not see such a thing."
The Commissioner:
I do not understand that. I doubt if the Witness means what I suppose him to mean by those words. Is it a probable thing that three men, all looking ahead using their eyes, should overlook anything of that kind. That presupposes that they can see it, but that they do not see it.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I think what the Witness means is, when would they see it. I do not think he means that they would overlook it when it might be seen. I think he is dealing with the question when would they see it - when ought they to have seen it? I so understand it.
The Commissioner:
It is very little use criticising the actual expressions used. One must gather the meaning.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, the general scope. Then the answer to Question 25132 is important. "I think that iceberg was such a very little thing, such a small thing and the conditions were so bad, that a man on watch, even two hours on watch, might have his eyes strained, and the Officer on watch might have his eyes strained and might just miss that particular berg. In running round the horizon his eyes might hop over this particular thing. (Q.) But there were three pairs of eyes." Then he is asked about the probability and possibility. "I think they might not see such a thing. (Q.) Then do you really mean to say that on a fine night with a flat sea the probable thing is that every ship will come in contact with an iceberg that happens to be on its course? - (A.) No, my Lord, I think it is an abnormal case entirely. (Q.) I am putting an abnormal case - an extraordinarily flat sea and black ice; do you think if there happened to be an iceberg in the course of that ship she must run up against it although there are three men on the watch? - (A.) The next time somebody may see it a little earlier; it is possible to see it a little earlier, but I do not like to express an opinion. (The Commissioner.) You said the probability was the ship would run up against the iceberg. (The Attorney-General.) Your Lordship will remember she is going 700 yards a minute, and it would not take long. (The Commissioner.) I know that. (To the Witness.) Then you know nothing about the turning circle of this ship? - (A.) I do not. (Q.) So that you cannot tell how she could avoid it. Well, now I want to know this - do these bergs extend sometimes under the water any considerable distance from the part that is visible? - (A.) It depends; if the berg is capsized it may extend perhaps 200 yards or more, depending on the size of the berg. Some bergs that are five miles long, which are rarely seen in the Atlantic, may extend 200 or 300 yards, what we call a spur, but not more than that. (Q.) So that the bottom of a ship might strike an iceberg before it reached what you may call the locality of the part that is uppermost. - (A.) Yes, before it actually struck the part above water. (Q.) But you think in an extreme case only 200 yards? - (A.) Yes, an extreme case. (Q.) Did you say 200 yards? - (A.) I have seen spurs 200 yards away, but I think a couple of hundred feet would be about the average for a spur. A lot depends upon the sort of ice - what sort of mountain it came off, and how it was formed, and what its specific gravity is, whether it is worn down in the current by the temperature of the water. (Q.) But the bottom of the berg may extend under the water any distance, from 200 feet to 600 feet? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Away from the visible berg itself? - (A.) Away from the visible vertical side of the berg? (Q.) So that the bottom of the ship might strike a berg any distance from 200 feet to 600 feet away from the visible berg? - (A.) Yes, that is my opinion, my Lord. There are no doubt other people who have also got perhaps slightly different opinions on it, but in the main, generalising, it is so. (Q.) I rather gather from what you have said to me - I am not sure that I ought to ask you this question, but I am going to ask it all the same - that you think it quite possible that the men were keeping as good a look-out as they could? - (A.) Yes, that is what I do think. (Q.) That is what you want to convey? - (A.) Yes, but I did say earlier, and I still say, I think it is an advantage to have only one man in the crow's-nest. (Q.) It has occurred to me; one knows what men are - when they are standing together - they began to talk sometimes? - (A.) I know I used to in my early days. (Q.) Then there is another question I am not sure I ought to ask you. Supposing it had been the invariable practice to navigate ships of this kind, following the usual track to America, at full speed, notwithstanding ice warnings, in your opinion, would a Captain who had been brought up in that trade be justified in following the practice. Now, do not answer that question if you do not like, and I will not ask it, Sir Robert, if you do not want me to ask it. If you have not formed any opinion about it, I will not press you to give me an answer? - (A.) We sailors all form opinions, my Lord, like other people, but it opens such a very wide question of relationship between owners and captains that I am not competent to answer it. I think it would be a natural thing for a Captain who had been brought up in a line doing the same thing, to continue doing it. But in view of the fact that there is wireless now, I think any accident could be avoided. (Q.) Well, yes, that is quite true. If you are right in saying that the better thing would be to reduce the speed to half speed - about 10 or 11 knots, and if you are right in saying that this berg might be approached practically without any warning to the look-out, it seems to me you would have an accident all the same, 11 knots or 22 knots. You would have to reduce it to about 4 knots? - (A.) Well, it would be better to do that. (Q.) Oh, yes, I quite agree. Now I want to ask you this question. Suppose that it took this ship 37 secs. to turn her two points, and that in that time she would travel 1,300 feet - supposing those to be the facts, and the helm was put hard-a-starboard as soon as the berg was sighted, the berg must then have been sighted more than 400 yards off? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) That would be so, of course? - (A.) Yes."
The Commissioner:
And that is so.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, clearly.
Sir Robert Finlay:
That is the whole of the evidence upon that point. My respectful submission to the Court is that we have completely established our case and that there is nothing in the evidence of Sir Ernest Shackleton when understood by the light of his experience and the special nature of that experience which in any way detracts from the full force of our evidence. Under those circumstances my first point is that it is impossible to say there was any negligence on the part of those who managed the "Titanic."
Now the next point I wish to make perfectly clear is this. The Witnesses all say: "We continue to go full speed if the weather is clear." Now I want to show your Lordship that the weather this night was, as Mr. Rostron said, perfectly clear: "I never saw a finer night" was his expression. I shall be very short on that.
The Commissioner:
At present - I do not want you to satisfy me about it, because I am satisfied about it - unless the Attorney-General tells me he is going to suggest the night was not perfectly clear.
The Attorney-General:
Oh no, when I told your Lordship I was not going to suggest there was a haze that was intended to cover this point. I take it it was a perfectly clear night.
The Commissioner:
I think it is the view of all the gentlemen with me.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I am obliged to your Lordship. That will save a good deal of time. Then with regard to the question of doubling the look-out and putting a man on the stem head, I do not know whether the Attorney-General is going to say that ought to have been done. If so, I must refer to the evidence.
The Attorney-General:
I think that must be considered, yes.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Now, the evidence with regard to that is rather voluminous, but I will take it as shortly as possible. The first Witness who says anything in relation to the point at all is Jewell at page 17, and his reference to it is extremely distant. They are Questions 12 and 13; in fact, he merely gives the number of the look-outs. "(Q.) Are there two forward? - (A.) No, not in clear weather; we take two hours each. (Q.) Let us just get it clear. There was you and there was Symons in the crow's-nest. Were there no other look-out men on duty? - (A.) No, not so long as the weather was clear"; and then he says the weather was clear.
The Commissioner:
Who is this man.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Jewell, my Lord, one of the look-outs on the "Titanic." He was not on duty at the time this iceberg was sighted. He came on duty at 8 o'clock and remained there till 10.
The Commissioner:
This man was on from 8 to 10; I do not think it is of much importance.
Sir Robert Finlay:
No, I said it was rather remote, my Lord. Then Hichens is more to the point on page 47.
Then Hichens was the Quartermaster, your Lordship will recollect. This is in answer to Mr. Scanlan at Question 1296. "Is it usual on board liners in circumstances of danger to double the watches - the look-out? - (A.) That is always so, Sir. (Q.) Had the watch been doubled or augmented - increased in any way - on this occasion? - (A.) Not that I am aware of. They do not double the watches on the bridge, where there are three Officers on the bridge, two Junior Officers taking eight-bell watches, and the senior Officer taking command of the bridge. (The Commissioner.) Do they double that watch? - (A.) No, Sir. (Mr. Scanlan.) What watches do they double? - (A.) In ships where they are not manned with so many Officers, and when they are nearing the shore in foggy weather they might double the watches. (Q.) Is it usual in circumstances of danger to station a watchman at the bows - a look-out man? - (A.) I cannot say. He cannot see so well as the man can see in the crow's-nest. (Q.) I am asking you, is it usual or not? - (A.) In some ships, Sir, they do station a man there. (The Commissioner.) As well as in the crow's-nest? - (A.) I have not seen that, my Lord - not a man stationed forward and stationed in the crow's-nest too."
The Commissioner:
What experience has this man?
Sir Robert Finlay:
He is a Quartermaster, my Lord; I think he had been at sea for a considerable time. He says at the beginning of his evidence that he was a Quartermaster. I do not think it appears how long he had been at sea." (A.) I have not seen that, my Lord - not a man stationed forward and stationed in the crow's-nest, too. (Mr. Scanlan.) If a watchman was stationed at the bow he would be considerably nearer the water than the man in the crow's-nest? - (A.) Yes, that is so, Sir." Well, it is the difference between 60 and 90 feet.
The Commissioner:
I have read this evidence down to Question 1307.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Very well, then I need not trouble with it.
The Attorney-General:
1321 might be of use.
Sir Robert Finlay:
"This was my first time in the North Atlantic, Sir," and then there are questions put to him about the number of men in the boat, and so on.
That does not come to very much. He says sometimes it is done; it comes to more than Jewell, but not very much. Hichens merely says that he has never seen a man in the crow's-nest, and a man also in the stem, but he knows it may sometimes be done in circumstances of danger. Then, my Lord, there is the evidence of Lee, at page 77.
The Commissioner:
Hichens said this in answer to me. I put the question to him: "Have you ever seen a man in the bow when there are men in the crow's-nest? - (A.) Never, my Lord. (Q.) Did you ever hear such a thing? - (A.) Never, my Lord."
Sir Robert Finlay:
Is this Hichens, my Lord?
The Commissioner:
Yes. Questions 1306 and 1307.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I thought I read it; I had it marked.
The Commissioner:
No, I told you I had read it. I stopped you from reading it. You said something to the effect that this Witness stated that he had heard of it; that is inconsistent with his answers to those questions.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I will look and see whether I am right; I thought what he was saying there was that he had never seen it himself.
The Commissioner:
He says he never heard of it.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Your Lordship is perfectly right. That qualifies, I think, what I thought he had said before.
The Attorney-General:
He has seen a man in the bow, but not in the crow's-nest as well.
Sir Robert Finlay:
At Question 1300 Mr. Scanlan asked him. "Is it usual in circumstances of danger to station a watchman at the bows - a look-out man? - (A.) I cannot say. He cannot see so well as the man can see in the crow's-nest. (Q.) I am asking you, is it usual or not? - (A.) In some ships, Sir, they do station a man there." That is what led me to say what I did, but he contradicts that when your Lordship puts it to him. I read Question 1302.
The Commissioner:
That is what you had in your mind, 1302.
Sir Robert Finlay:
1301 I had in my mind and then the qualification in 1302, when in answer to your Lordship, he says: "I have not seen that, my Lord - not a man stationed forward and stationed in the crow's-nest, too." That qualifies the answer which Mr. Scanlan got in 1301, and it is finally dispelled by the answers to 1306 and 1307 to your Lordship with regard to the practice. That goes to show that in Hichens' experience it was unknown and that he had never heard of it.
Lee's evidence is at page 77, and I think when Lee's evidence is analysed it comes to this, that they have a look-out man in the bows in the fog.
The Commissioner:
This is one of the men who were on the look-out.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes. "(Examined by Mr. Scanlan.)" - at 2596 - "When you are at sea in a fog is it a usual practice to station a watchman at the bows in addition to the look-out in the crow's-nest? - (A.) The captain of the ship has to be responsible for that kind of thing. (Q.) Just tell us whether in your experience it is usual to do that? - (A.) If the captain of the ship thinks it is necessary. (Q.) Have you seen it done? - (A.) I have. (Q.) Have you seen it done frequently? - (A.) Frequently." The question was in a fog your Lordship sees.
The Commissioner:
I do not think this is very relevant.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Then he is pressed as to whether there was not a haze at the time, and at 2617 (Mr. Scanlan.) asks this: "Would it have been easier to have observed the iceberg from the bow than from the crow's-nest? - (A.) I cannot answer you that. (Q.) When you have been on other ships, have you ever been at watch on the bows? - (A.) Yes. (The Commissioner.) Was there a crow's-nest on that ship? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) And was there somebody in the crow's-nest as well? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) And somebody on the bridge as well? - (A.) That was off the banks of Newfoundland."
Your Lordship knows how special the conditions are there.
"(Q.) Was there somebody on the bridge as well? - (A.) Two quartermasters were there, and the Officer of the watch. (Q.) What ship was this? - (A.) The "Minnehaha." (Q.) What line does she belong to? - (A.) The Atlantic Transport. (Q.) Is she a mail boat? - (A.) No, sir. (Q.) (Mr. Scanlan.) As you have been stationed both in the crow's-nest and in other lines on the bows, I want you to give us your opinion as to whether it would be easier to see the iceberg if you were stationed at the bows than in the crow's-nest. (The Commissioner.) He has given you an answer to that which I believe to be quite true, that he does not know," and there the matter ends.
Then Question 2668 on page 78 Mr. Harbinson says this: "(Q.) I think you said that off the banks of Newfoundland on previous occasions there has been an additional man in the bows - an additional look-out? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) How many times in your experience? - (A.) In the Navy they have extra look-outs on each side of the foc'sle, and may be aloft as well. (Q.) But you yourself have seen it on boats you have been previously employed on? - (A.) Yes."
On the banks of Newfoundland they are liable to a vast amount of fog there. I think that is all in Lee's evidence which has any bearing at all upon this point.
Then Poingdestre at page 86. He is an A.B. and he says in answer to Mr. Scanlan in Questions 3153 to 3159: "(Q.) Well, you have done look-out duty, I think you said? - (A.) I have. (Q.) On the forecastle head? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) On what kind of ships? - (A.) On the Royal Mail boats, and also on the 'Oceanic' and the 'Teutonic.' (Q.) And those are ships which have crow's-nests as well? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) On those boats has it been the practice to have, as well as the look-out man in the crow's-nest, a look-out man at the forecastle head? - (A.) Yes, and the White Star liners always do have one. (Q.) From your experience, is the forecastle head a good place from which to keep a look-out? - (A.) Well, it is. (Q.) (The Commissioner.) Is it better than the crow's-nest? - (A.) No, my Lord. (Mr. Scanlan.) Would it be better for icebergs than the crow's-nest? - (A.) No."
Then if your Lordship will turn to page 89 it would appear he was referring to the practice in hazy weather. It is Question 3335.
The Commissioner:
What is the meaning of 3157? It is quite contrary to my notion of the practice of the White Star Line.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Quite contrary. But he is referring, I think, to hazy and foggy weather.
The Commissioner:
It may be, but I am sure it is quite contrary to the general practice.
Sir Robert Finlay:
It is, my Lord. I think it is dispelled on turning to page 89, where he explained what he really meant at Question 3335, he is asked by my friend Mr. Laing this question: "(Q.) Now, when you say that in the White Star Line they have a man forward in the forecastle head as a look-out as well as in the crow's-nest, do you mean in dense fogs? - (A.) No, in any hazy weather whatever. (Q.) In foggy weather? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Then they have a man forward on the look-out? - (A.) Yes, they generally put two extra men on the look-out."
The Commissioner:
Yes, that explains it.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Your Lordship says: "There was no fog on this night, was there?" and the Witness says, "No, my Lord." That removes the misapprehension which his first answer might have been calculated to create.
Then there were one or two answers in the evidence of Mr. Lord, the captain of the "Californian." I do not know whether I read those answers in his evidence when I was referring to him on another point. It is on page 163, Question 7041.
The Commissioner:
It has been read to me by somebody, but I cannot tell whether you read it.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Then I probably read it, my Lord. I endeavoured to read anything which related at all to the matter when I was going through the evidence.
The Commissioner:
But what I want is to have it on the Note. It is sufficient to indicate the Question.
Sir Robert Finlay:
It is Question 7041. That is what he did. It runs on Question 7056 on the same page. Question 7056 brings it rather to a point. (Q.) "Did you find it better for detecting ice" - that is the man on the forecastle head - "to have a man right in the bows like that? - (A.) Well, I do not know, this is my first experience of field ice. I think I saw the ice myself before they did."
The Commissioner:
He means from the bridge, I suppose.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes. Then on page 164, Question 7100, Mr. Scanlan, who is very strong upon this point, puts this Question.
The Commissioner:
That is the fog and the haze again.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes. In a fog and a haze. That extends to 7102, and I need not read that.
Then at page 166, Question 7172, Mr. Harbinson says to Mr. Lord, "Now I want to put a further question to you about the look-out men. You have a crow's-nest on your boat? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Is it an able-bodied seaman you keep posted there usually? - (A.) Yes, always. (Q.) Is it a most responsible position? - (A.) Oh, I suppose it is. (Q.) To detect danger ahead? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Do you think that the responsibility of that position would be better satisfied if a Junior Officer was also posted in the crow's-nest along with the able-bodied seamen? - (A.) Do you mean in my own ship? (Q.) In any ship. I ask you now from your general experience as a captain and a seagoing man? - (A.) No. If you have an Officer on the bridge, I think that is quite sufficient."
Then on page 167, Question 7251, in answer to myself he says this: "(Q.) Now with regard to your own vessel, where is the best point for a look-out, on the stem or the crow's-nest, in your vessel? - (A.) The man in the crow's-nest on a clear day would see a light further than a man on the forecastle head of the ship would; but sometimes in hazy weather it is possible to see better from the forecastle head than it is from the crow's-nest. (Q.) And with regard to ice, where would that be best seen from? - (A.) On a clear night I think you would see just as well from the crow's-nest as you would from the foc'sle head. (Q.) You had one man only in the crow's-nest? - (A.) One only. (Q.) And one only on the stem? - (A-.) On the foc'sle. (Q.) As a matter of fact, I think you said that you saw the ice before either of them? - (A.) I reversed the engines myself before they reported it. Just as they were reporting it I had reversed the engines."
Then Mr. Moore, at page 208, Questions 9267 to 9276, says this: I may have read them because I read a great deal of Mr. Moore. My friend Mr. Laing thinks I read this.
The Commissioner:
Well, you did not. Take Question 9270.
Sir Robert Finlay:
"(Q.) If you expect to see ice, do you double the look-out? - (A.) Oh, yes. (Q.) When you double the look-out, just explain to my Lord what you do? - (A.) Put an extra hand on the forecastle head, besides the look-out in the crow's-nest. (Q.) In ordinary circumstances have you two men in the crow's-nest? - (A.) Only one. (Q.) And one on the forecastle head? - (A.) Yes or on the forward bridge. We have a look-out on the forward bridge. (The Commissioner.) Not in ordinary circumstances. (Mr. Scanlan.) No. (To the Witness.) In ordinary circumstances have you any man stationed at the forecastle head? - (A.) No. (Q.) Supposing there was ice ahead of you would you double the look-out? - (A.) Certainly. (Mr. Scanlan.) I think your Lordship will observe that I want to make this point, that in any circumstances of danger there should be a look-out man on the forecastle head as well as in the crow's-nest. (The Commissioner.) I understand that point. (Mr. Scanlan.) Supposing there happened to be a haze ahead, would you then put a look-out man on the forecastle head? - (A.) Yes."
Then on page 210, Question 9396, "(Mr. Laing.) With regard to the look-outs, do you put a man on the look-out on the forecastle head in foggy weather? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) And hazy weather? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Weather in which you blow your whistle; is that what you mean? - (A.) Even when we do not. When it is really necessary to blow the whistle we always put a man in the crow's-nest, and when we meet ice we put a man forward on the look-out on the forecastle head. (Q.) That is in hazy weather? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Do you usually carry one man in the crow's-nest? - (A.) At nighttime; not in clear weather in the daytime. (Q.) In the daytime you do not have a look-out at all? - (A.) We have an Officer on the bridge. (Q.) But you do not have a man in the crow's-nest or one on the forecastle head? - (A.) No. (Q.) But at night you have, as a Rule, a man in the crow's-nest? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) But if it is hazy weather, a man on the bow as well? - (A.) Yes." That is all in Mr. Moore's evidence which has any bearing upon this point.
Then Mr. Wynn, the Quartermaster, at page 301, Question 13378, "Is it usual to station look-out men in the ships you have experience of in the bows? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) As well as in the crow's-nest? - (A.) Yes. (The Commissioner.) Always in foggy or hazy weather. (Mr. Scanlan.) Is it usual when there is ice about? - (A.) No." Mr. Scanlan was examining Mr. Wynn, one of the Quartermasters. That shows it is only in foggy or hazy weather.
Then Mr. Lightoller at page 304, Question 13520: "(Q.) What was the practice in the "Titanic" as far as this voyage is concerned about having a look-out man anywhere else?" - that is besides the crow's-nest. "(A.) In anything but clear weather, we carry extra look-outs. (Q.) But where do you put them? - (A.) If the weather is fine, that is to say, if the sea allows it, we place them near the stem head; when the weather does not allow us placing then at the stem head, then probably on the bridge." That is in anything but clear weather.
The Commissioner:
They had actually had extra look-out men on this voyage.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I had not observed that, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
It is the next question, 13524.
"(Q.) Had there been, as far as you remember, any occasion since she left Southampton to have extra look-out men? - (A.) Yes, and we had had them."
Sir Robert Finlay:
The next question is: "(Q.) But at this time it was clear and fine? - (A.) Yes."
Then Mr. Lightoller, on page 330, returns to this point. With regard to the special look-out men that the White Star Line employed. It is at Question 14426, and it runs on to 14441. This is in examination by Mr. Scanlan: "(Q.) I will pass from that point. Amongst the precautions which it would be proper to adopt, would it not be desirable to station more look-outs, more look-out men on the bows or the stem head? - (A.) Anything which would be conducive to avoiding danger. (Q.) Would that be conducive to avoiding danger? - (A.) It might be. (Q.) I am speaking to you as a man of great practical experience? - (A.) I could not exactly say whether look-outs in the stem head would be. We do not place very much reliance on them; we hope they will keep a very good look-out, but those men in the first place are not regular look-out men," - the point is the "Titanic" employs special look-out men for the crow's-nest. If they double the look-out they have to put an ordinary A.B. - "and you have not the same control over them as you have over the look-out men. They have nothing to sacrifice in the way of a good berth, which the look-out man's is. (Q.) I think the difference between a regular look-out man and an irregular look-out man - that is, an ordinary A.B. - is 5s. a month? - (A.) Five shillings a month in pay and a difference in watches and a difference in work on board the ship. (Q.) But there is no passing of an examination to go from one grade to the other? - (A.) Yes. (The Solicitor-General.) Is there? - (A.) Yes. I should explain to you it is customary when a ship is running for all look-out men to have an eye test as well as the Quartermaster's. That does not apply necessarily to A.B.'s. (Mr. Scanlan.) I was going to ask you about the eye test" - I do not think I need read that.
The Attorney-General:
You need not read that as far as I am concerned.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Then 14440: "(Q.) Did the six look-out men on the "Titanic" sign on in any special way? - (A.) I believe they signed on as look-out men. (Q.) But you do not know of your own knowledge? - (A.) No, I could not say for certain."
I think that is all Mr. Lightoller's evidence upon this matter.
