British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 32
Final Arguments
Sir Robert Finlay:
My Lord, I was calling attention to the passages in the evidence which dealt with the question of the look-out - the suggestion that there ought to have been extra look-out men on the stem. I had finished what Mr. Lightoller said on that point, and I now call your Lordship's attention to what is said by Fleet with regard to the practice on the White Star Line, of carrying special look-outs. It is very short, and it is connected, of course, with this question of look-out. It is on page 414, Questions 17446 down to 17452. He says that in the White Star Line they carry special look-out men, that he was one of them who signed on as a look-out man, that that was his work, and that is the practice on the White Star Line. Then he is asked at Question 17452: "(Q.) To have special look-out men. Do you know whether it is the practice on other lines? - (A.) I do not know; it is the only company I have been on the look-out."
Summarising, it is that the White Star Line employs special look-out men who have advantages in the way of pay and otherwise, and they are devoted to that work. The ordinary A.B.'s are not employed in rotation upon it, as they are upon some of the other vessels which we have heard about.
Then Hogg on page 416 gives evidence on the same point in Questions 17487 down to 17493. He is asked "How long have you been a look-out man? - (A.) I went one trip in the 'Adriatic' and three days on this ship. That is all. (Q.) And you have also been employed in ships of the P. and O. Company and the Royal Mail? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) The Union Castle? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) And other lines? - (A.) Yes, and other lines. (Q.) And you have acted as look-out, I suppose, in some of those lines? - (A.) They do not carry look-out men; everybody takes their turn. (Q.) You have acted as look-out, but you did not sign as look-out? - (A.) That is so. (Q.) In these other vessels, as far as I understand you, there was no question of signing as look-out man. It is only in the White Star that has happened in your experience? - (A.) Yes."
Then Mr. Ismay was asked a question on this point at page 447, Question 18701. Mr. Scanlan was examining. "(Q.) You do not issue any similar instructions to your Captains? - (A.) We carry two look-outs always. (The Commissioner.) In the crow's-nest? - (A.) Yes. (Mr. Scanlan.) But you do not issue instructions; you carry two look-outs for fair weather and foul weather? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Who are there constantly day and night? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) What I am trying to get from you is this: Do you take any extra precautions in circumstances of danger, such as the proximity of ice? - (A.) No. (Q.) You do not? - (A.) No. (Q.) I put it to you that it would be a reasonable precaution and justified by your recent experience, to give such an order? - (A.) That is a matter which is entirely in the hands of the Commander of the ship; he can put extra look-outs if he wishes to, at any time. (Q.) But do not you think it is a matter on which you might give instructions to your Captains? - (A.) I think it is unnecessary to give those instructions. (Q.) You think the Captains should do it themselves? - (A.) If they think it necessary. (Q.) And double the look-out? - (A.) If he thinks it necessary. (Q.) Did you know that on the night of the accident the weather conditions made it difficult to keep the look-out and to see ice? Did you know that? - (A.) I did not. (Q.) And that the state of the weather was giving considerable anxiety to the Captain, or giving some anxiety to the Captain and to Mr. Lightoller? - (A.) I did not. (The Commissioner.) Does Mr. Lightoller say the weather was giving him any anxiety? (Mr. Scanlan.) He describes the weather conditions as being quite abnormal, my Lord. (The Attorney-General.) Yes, because it was so good. (The Commissioner.) My recollection is that he said you could see perfectly well," and so he did. The most striking point of abnormality was the one of which they were not aware until the boats reached the water.
Then there is a longish extract read by Mr. Scanlan, in a passage which your Lordship will recollect. Mr. Scanlan goes on: "At other points of his evidence also, my Lord, this point is brought out. Of course, he does state, in spite of that, that it was easy to see; but what I suggest is that this statement from Mr. Lightoller, taken in conjunction with the evidence of the three men who have spoken to a haze, shows that it was very difficult to see that night. (Sir Robert Finlay.) I must point out that Mr. Lightoller is there speaking by the light of what he knew. (The Commissioner.) I know. As I understand Mr. Lightoller, if you had put 50 men on the look-out in those peculiar abnormal conditions that he talks about, this berg would not have been seen. (The Attorney-General.) That is so, my Lord. (The Commissioner.) That is right, is it not? (Mr. Scanlan.) I do not think it is, my Lord. (The Commissioner.) Well, two could not see it - three could not see it, because there was a man on the bridge - and according to him they could not see it because it could not be seen; therefore, it seems to me to follow that if you put 50 men on the look-out they would not have seen it. (Mr. Scanlan.) I wish to recall this to your Lordship's recollection. One man saw it - that is the man in the crow's-nest, Fleet. (The Commissioner.) He saw it when it was too late. (Mr. Scanlan.) He stated to your Lordship that if he had had glasses he could have seen it in sufficient time to have made the difference." That point has now gone. That is really all in Mr. Ismay's evidence on that point.
Then Mr. Sanderson is asked about the practice at page 485, Question 19946. "(Q.) Does it suggest itself to you as a reasonable thing, that at nights the look-out should be increased? - (A.) At nights, ordinarily, no. (Q.) At nights when ice is expected? - (A.) If it is clear I should think two men would see the ice as well as six. (Q.) Now, I want to put this to you: Do you think, with your knowledge and experience, which, of course, is very extensive, that it would be advantageous when running at night in a region where ice is expected to station a look-out man at the stem head in addition to the look-out men in the crow's-nest? - (A.) Reasonable - if the Commander thought it would help him, he would do it undoubtedly, but as to whether it is reasonable or not I cannot say. There could be no harm in it, certainly - (Q.) Do you think it is a desirable thing to do? - (A.) I really do not think so. I think two men on the look-out in clear weather are sufficient for any purpose, whether it is for ships or ice or anything else, but perhaps when it was hazy it would be advisable. (Q.) Do you think, for the purpose of detecting ice, that it is not desirable to have always a man stationed at the stem head at night? - (A.) The term "desirable" bothers me. If you say "desirable" it might be desirable to have a score of people there, but I do not think it is necessary. (Q.) Do you think, as a practical man, that it should be done? - (A.) No."
Then there is a question on sight tests for the look-out men. Mr. Sanderson says they have such tests. "I am informed that they have experienced difficulty in Southampton in getting men with sight certificates, but it is our wish that it should be done as far as possible. (Q.) And that only men with sight certificates should be got for this purpose? - (A.) Yes, that is right."
Then Captain Bartlett, at page 566, says he thinks it is not necessary to have a man on the stem. At Question 21723 Mr. Scanlan asks: "A suggestion has been made that for the discovery of ice the best position for the look-out man is at the stem head. Do you agree? - (A.) In hazy weather, yes. (Q.) And at night when ice is expected? - (A.) Not a clear night, no. (Q.) On a night when it is difficult to see? - (A.) It is hard to see how that can be if it is clear."
Then Captain Hayes, the Captain of the "Adriatic," at page 569, Question 21808, is asked by the Attorney-General, "When you are approaching an ice region, that is to say, the position in which ice has been reported to you, do you take any precautions? - (A.) I take precautions according to the weather. (Q.) Supposing the weather is clear? - (A.) We keep an ordinary look-out, which is always an excellent one. (Q.) Do you mean the ordinary look-out in the crow's-nest? - (A.) Yes, and on the bridge, and I personally stay round. (Q.) You do not put anybody in the bows? - (A.) Not in clear weather. (Q.) Not in clear weather or fine weather? - (A.) Clear weather must be fine. (Q.) Do you mean, not when you can see clearly, but when you have a smooth sea? - (A.) I do not take the sea into consideration at all. It is as long as the weather is clear." And then he goes into the question of the rate of speed.
Then Captain Passow, the Captain of the "St. Paul," on page 571, at Question 21863, says he agrees with the evidence that has just been given by Captain Hayes, the last preceding Witness. Then Captain Steel, at page 575, Question 21978. Mr. Scanlan puts this to him: "If it was found, as is stated by Mr. Lightoller, that he had observed from six o'clock to ten o'clock on the night of the 14th of April that it was more difficult than under normal circumstances to see an iceberg, would that suggest to you from the point of view of seamanship that a double look-out should have been set that night? - (A.) No. (Q.) Do not you think it would be desirable to place an extra look-out man on the bows? - (A.) No."
I think the assumption of fact in that question is erroneous. Mr. Lightoller never said it was more difficult in normal circumstances to see an iceberg. I mean, he never said he knew it then. What he did say was that when they found the sea was absolutely still, without any swell at all, then that showed him that there had been a difficulty which, when he was on the bridge, he had been quite unable to realise, of course. There was no statement by Mr. Lightoller that he had found out, when on watch, that it was more difficult that night to see an iceberg.
The Commissioner:
You are not quite right about that, but you are right, I think, to this extent, that he had not appreciated the absence of one important circumstance that would indicate the presence of ice, namely, the swell. I do not think you can put it higher than that.
Sir Robert Finlay:
That is enough for my purpose. I do not find that Mr. Lightoller anywhere says that when he was on the bridge there were any circumstances which brought to his mind that it was more difficult on that night to see the iceberg. On the contrary, he says it was a perfectly clear night, and the arrangement that the Captain made was that if it became in the least hazy, so that it should become difficult to see, the Captain, who had only gone into the chart room, should be called at once.
The Commissioner:
I remember it quite well. It all comes in the conversation that Lightoller says he had with the Captain.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
For my own part, I doubt that conversation a good deal. People have extraordinarily accurate memories at times, and that seems very accurate.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes; but, my Lord, it is a very natural conversation. I daresay the words are not exactly those used.
The Commissioner:
I was making the observation in your favour.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I accept that, my Lord. In reproducing a conversation, one throws it, of course, into conversational form; the words used may not have been exactly those which were employed - but still they give the effect of what passed. But my point is this, and I think what your Lordship has said, bears it out, that Mr. Lightoller never said that he or anyone on the bridge thought that there was anything in the circumstances of the weather that night to make it more difficult than usual to see an iceberg.
The Commissioner:
He says this, that there was an absolute absence of wind, of motion on the sea. It was a calm sea. He talks about it, and the Captain says it is a pity. I think he uses the very words, "It is a pity."
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, he said so to the Captain.
The Commissioner:
He said it was rather a pity the breeze had not kept up.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, he does not go beyond that; but still, if there had been a swell, there would have been enough to call attention to the iceberg; not so good, of course, as if there had been a strong wind. All I mean is, I think it is put a great deal too high in the question which is addressed by Mr. Scanlan.
The Commissioner:
Oh, that you must expect; we have all done that in our time.
Sir Robert Finlay:
The vital point, the absence of swell, was one which no one realised until they got down to the water. That is the point.
Then Mr. Owen Jones is that evidence is at page 665 -
The Commissioner:
I think if you would read the references, the numbers of the questions, that will be sufficient, because I shall have to look at all this.
Sir Robert Finlay:
If your Lordship pleases.
The Commissioner:
And only read those parts that you think are of great significance.
Sir Robert Finlay:
If your Lordship pleases. That will relieve me of a great deal of trouble. I think if all records run to such a length as this and one were to give the number of the question, such as 23598, one would need to introduce some system of units such as they have for giving the distance of a fixed star. It would shorten matters a little. On page 665, Question 23653, Mr. Scanlan asks what provision had he for a look-out, and he said: "Two men on the look-out. (Q.) Where? - (A.) One in the crow's-nest and one on the stem head. (Q.) Was your one man on the stem head put on at night? - (A.) Yes, he was put on that night; just as we got on to the ice track. (Q.) Did you consider it a proper precaution to put a man at the stem head when ice was reported? - (A.) It had been always our custom; we have always done that for the last 27 years. (Q.) At night? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Whether ice is reported or not? - (A.) In the ice track." If you have only one man in the crow's-nest; and they proceed on the principle of having one man, then on the ice track he would have a second man on the stem; but the evidence here is that the look-out from the crow's-nest in the "Titanic" was rather better than from the stem.
Then Captain Cannons, at page 666, Questions 23746 down to 23752, says that in clear weather he would not double the look-out even in ice. I think I have fairly summarised his evidence. He says that he carries one man on the look-out in the crow's-nest in clear weather, and only that one in clear weather, except the Officers on the bridge; that he would not increase the number of men on the look-out in clear weather, but would go steaming on with one man in the crow's-nest, and that is all. The difference he makes, and this is the important answer, is in 23751: "(Q.) You do not put anybody, apparently, in the stem head? - (A.) No, not unless the weather becomes hazy, or any difference to ordinary clear weather. (Q.) If the weather does become hazy it would be better to put a man on the stem head, I understand? - (A.) A man goes there immediately."
Then at Question 23765 Mr. Scanlan returns to the charge upon this point. He says: "(Q.) If there is any difficulty at all in seeing ahead at night, would it be in accordance with your practice to double the look-out? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) You think that would be the proper thing to do? - (A.) If there was any haze at all, yes, immediately. (Q.) Apart from haze, if there was what has been described here as a flat calm, and the conditions were such that it would be more difficult than on an ordinary clear night to see an iceberg ahead, would you double the look-out? - (A.) Not in perfectly clear weather. (Q.) If it is calm is it more difficult to see en iceberg? - (A.) I have not found it so." So that it comes to this, according to the evidence of Captain Cannons, as long as the weather is perfectly clear there is no occasion to double the look-out.
The Attorney-General:
Whilst your Lordship has that before you - it saves so much turning to it afterwards - would your Lordship read the next two questions, which bear upon what Mr. Lightoller describes as the one abnormal condition of which he had no knowledge.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I will read that: "(Q.) If it is calm is it more difficult to see an iceberg? - (A.) I have not found it so. (The Commissioner.) Do you think it is more difficult to see an iceberg when the sea is flat and with the weather quite clear? Do you think the flat sea prevents you from seeing an iceberg as readily as you would do if the sea were rough or rippled? - (A.) No. (Q.) You do not believe in that? - (A.) No. (Mr. Scanlan.) If any condition of the weather prevented you from seeing clearly you would double the look-out? - (A.) Decidedly."
Of course, that answer, like other answers which were given by some of the other Witnesses, relates to the fact that their experience has been of white icebergs - the great white iceberg, they see that. The value of the ripple is enormously enhanced, of course, if the iceberg is dark. With a great white iceberg you see it as you see that cartoon on the wall.
Then at Question 23850, on page 669, he modifies, on re-examination by the Attorney-General what he had said on the point to which the Attorney-General called attention. I had better begin a little higher to make it intelligible. At Question 23834 the Attorney-General says: "Just assume this: A perfectly clear night, a perfectly flat sea, and no wind, and therefore nothing in the nature of surf round the edge of the iceberg. Would those circumstances, in your opinion, make the sighting of an iceberg difficult? - (A.) Yes, it would increase the difficulty of seeing it. (Q.) Are those circumstances very rare? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) A perfectly flat sea, no swell, no ripple? - (A.) They are extremely rare in the North Atlantic. (Q.) But still such circumstances are sometimes found? - (A.) Yes, my Lord." These questions were put by your Lordship. Then your Lordship puts this: "How far do you suppose you would see an iceberg in those circumstances? - (A.) I should say a mile. (Q.) A vessel going 22 knots an hour, sighting an iceberg a mile away, can, I suppose, clear it? - (A.) Yes." Then your Lordship asks how he explains that this iceberg was not seen. He says it may extend under the water a considerable distance from the portion seen above, and so on. I have read that passage. Then Question 23849: "(The Attorney-General.) There is one question on what your Lordship has said. (To the Witness.) Before this accident to the 'Titanic' had it ever occurred to you that on a specially calm night and a specially clear night it would be more difficult to detect an iceberg? - (A.) Oh, yes. (Q.) So that a skilled navigator would expect that it could be more difficult on a specially calm night and on a specially clear night? - (A.) Yes, it would be more difficult in the calm. You see the sea causes an extra warning, breaking against the berg."
The Commissioner:
That is inconsistent with what he said before.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, he modifies what he said before. When he gave the first answer, that seems really to have been in his mind was what I indicated before; his experience was with white bergs, and the value, of course, of the fringe of white is not so great where you have a great mass of white berg; you do not really want that. It is an extra guide, but its value is nothing as compared with what its value is if you come across that rare phenomenon a black berg, such as we had on the present occasion.
Then the evidence of Captain Ranson, the Captain of the "Baltic," is at page 676, Question 24981. Mr. Scanlan says: "Do you double the look-outs at night? - (A.) No, not in clear weather."
Then Sir Ernest Shackleton gave evidence on this point, but I read that yesterday, and I need not read it again. It is on page 678, down to page 681.
Then Captain Pritchard, the Captain of the "Mauretania," at page 732, states that his practice is the same, that he doubles the look-out in fog, but not in clear weather. That is at Questions 25178 down to 25187. He is in command of the "Mauretania." Question 25178 is -
The Commissioner:
I have read it.
Sir Robert Finlay:
If your Lordship pleases. And the following questions bear out what I said as the result of his evidence; he doubles the look-out in foggy but not in clear weather.
Then Captain Young, the Captain of the "City of Rome," on the following page, from Questions 25230 to 25232, says: "With regard to look-out at night, when you have been informed that you may be passing icebergs, what provision did you make for your look-out under such circumstances? - (A.) The same as other times, as long as it was clear - two men in the crow's-nest. (Q.) You had two men in the crow's-nest? - (A.) Yes, I had two men in the crow's-nest. (Q.) And nobody on the stem head? - (A.) Not when it is perfectly clear."
Then Mr. Stewart, at Question 25258: "(Q.) With regard to look-out, if you have information that you may meet ice, either field ice or icebergs at night, do you take any special precautions with regard to the look-out? - (A.) In clear weather we have the ordinary look-out. (Q.) Where is that ordinary look-out kept? - (A.) In the crow's-nest."
That, I think, completes the evidence on that point with regard to the look-out. I submit that the enormous preponderance of the evidence is that, as long as the weather is clear, you simply go on with your ordinary look-out. Some gentlemen speak about doubling the look-out if they are in the ice region, but then they went on to say that in ordinary circumstances they have only one man in the crow's-nest. They put on another man, and put him on to the stem. Where you have two men in the crow's-nest I submit that the evidence amply justifies the course which was pursued on board the "Titanic," and that any charge of failure to do anything that could be reasonably required entirely breaks down so far as this head is concerned.
I am reminded that I accidentally omitted to give Mr. Fairfull at page 734. I had marked him, but overlooked it. Mr. Fairfull, at Question 25272, says -
The Commissioner:
I have read it.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I submit, taking the evidence en bloc, and appreciating its effect, the enormous preponderance of evidence is in favour of the course which the "Titanic" adopted.
Captain Rostron's evidence your Lordship knows I have read. So much with regard to that.
Now, my Lord, I proceed to deal with the circumstances under which the vessel came into collision with this iceberg. My submission is that this collision was due to circumstances which are quite unprecedented, and could not have been anticipated. They were very rare, and the Witnesses, in various forms of expression, speak to their rarity. I think Sir Ernest Shackleton's expression was, "You might never encounter it once in your lifetime," and so on. It is an extraordinary combination of circumstances, unprecedented, and such as might not occur for another century.
Now, in the first place, you had a black berg. That is a very rare thing, as I shall show your Lordship from the evidence. In the second place, there was no swell, so that there was perfect calm, the sea like oil. That, again, I will show your Lordship from the evidence, is an extraordinarily rare circumstance in the Atlantic. It was the combination of these two circumstances which led to this iceberg not being seen sooner than it was.
Now, I will take those in their order and just group the evidence, as shortly as possible, with reference to each point.
That it was a black berg is proved by Fleet, by Lee, and by Lucas. I will give your Lordship the references to those. At page 410 Fleet says this. At Question 17276 the Attorney-General asks: "Now, describe to my Lord what it was you saw? - (A.) Well, a black object. (Q.) A black object. Was it high above the water, or low? - (A.) High above the water." Then, on page 414, at Questions 17467 down to 17469, I put this question: "Now, just one or two questions with regard to the iceberg. Did you describe it when you gave evidence in the United States, on the other side of the water, as a black mass when you saw it? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) And did you say that you estimated that it was 50 ft. or 60 ft. above the water? - (A.) Did I say that? No, I said it was little higher than the forecastle head when he asked me that. (Q.) I will just read you what you said on the 23rd April, at page 16, about it. 'I reported an iceberg right ahead, a black mass,' Is that right? - (A.) Yes, that is right. (Q.) And then on page 18, this is also on the 23rd April - this question is put to you: 'How large did it get to be finally when it struck the ship? - that is the iceberg? - (A.) When we were alongside it was a little bit higher than the forecastle head. (Q.) The forecastle head is how high above the waterline? - (A.) 50 feet, I should say. (Q.) About 50 feet? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) So that this black mass, when it finally struck the boat, turned out to be about 50 feet above the water? - (A.) About 50 or 60. (Q.) 50 or 60 feet above the water? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) And when you first saw it it looked no larger than these two tables? - (A.) No, Sir.'" The passage ends there, I think. In both these passages he describes it as a black mass.
Then Lee at page 73 says the same thing at Question 2441 and the two following questions. The Attorney-General puts this question: "What did it look like? It was something which was above the forecastle? - (A.) It was a dark mass that came through that haze, and there was no white appearing until it was just close alongside the ship, and that was just a fringe at the top. (Q.) It was a dark mass that appeared, you say? - (A.) Through this haze, and as she moved away from it there was just a white fringe along the top. That was the only white about it, until she passed by, and then you could see she was white; one side of it seemed to be black, and the other side seemed to be white. When I had a look at it going astern it appeared to be white. (Q.) At that time the ship would be throwing some light upon it; there were lights on your own ship? - (A.) It might have been that." That is a very probable explanation.
Then Lucas speaks to the colour of the fragments of ice that were thrown upon the deck. On page 50, Question 1427, speaking of the ice on the deck, he says, when he is asked what colour it was: "It was a darkish white."
Now, my Lord, a black berg is a very unusual phenomenon indeed. Your Lordship will recollect that Mr. Lightoller, in his evidence, when referring to the description that had been given of the berg, said that he thought it must have been recently capsized. Then there was a very interesting piece of evidence given by Captain Cannons further on, when he told us that on one occasion he had seen an iceberg capsize. It had been a white object, the ordinary iceberg, perfectly white. It turned over, and then he had a black mass presented to him for the only time in his experience.
There are four Witnesses who deal with this point. Captain Cannons is at page 667, and at question 23762 your Lordship asks the Witness: "Have you seen black ice? - (A.) No, my Lord; I have not seen black ice, but the ice varies considerably in its appearance. (Q.) Have you seen many icebergs? - (A.) Yes, my Lord. (Q.) And you have never seen a black iceberg? - (A.) No." Then at page 668 the same Witness is asked at Question 23804: "Have you ever seen a black berg? - (A.) No. (Q.) In your experience are icebergs dark or black? - (A.) I have seen them much darker. Might I explain an experience of mine some years ago, which will give you possibly an idea of the difference in the colour." I need not read again the account of the capsizing of the iceberg, because it was given so dramatically that I am sure it is in the memory of everyone.
The Commissioner:
He describes the colour as dark blue.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, that was in daylight, of course, my Lord. Then at Question 23810 he is asked: "Have you ever seen another iceberg of that dark colour? - (A.) No, only that one that capsized. (Q.) Where there is a swell or a little wind, does the water break at the foot of the berg? - (A.) Oh, yes. (Q.) Now, supposing you had a dark blue berg such as you have described, dark in colour, what would the effect of the water breaking at the foot of it, with a swell or wind, be, as regards what you would see? - (A.) Well, it would show white at the base. (Q.) But in your experience the bergs have been white except with this one exception? - (A.) With the exception of this one which I saw in daylight and noticed the difference in the colour, all of them have been discernible at nighttime, and, of course, in the day."
Then Captain Passow, at page 571, Question 21882; your Lordship puts this question to him: "If you are right, and if this was, as we have been told by a great many Witnesses it was - a perfectly clear night - how do you account for the collision? - (A.) I cannot account for it at all. They say it looked like a black iceberg, but I have never seen a black iceberg." Captain Passow, of course, was a man of great experience in the Atlantic: "I never saw anything but a white one, and that you can see on the darkest night. You can see field ice, too, on the darkest night in time enough for you to get out of the way of it. (Q.) We have had an explanation given of it by Mr. Lightoller. He said that the sea was absolutely flat - there was not, as I understood him, even a swell - and that the consequence of that was that there was no surf of any kind round the base of the iceberg. By the base, I mean the margin on the waterline, and that, therefore, one of the best indications for the seeing of ice was absent. What do you think about that? - (A.) I think you would see the surf round it at a shorter distance than you would see the iceberg, if it was a large one. The ice has a phosphorescent appearance. (Q.) I should have thought that, as a seaman, you would have had some sort of explanation to suggest? - (A.) I cannot think of anything, because they say the ice was dark blue, almost black. I never saw an iceberg like that in my life, and I have seen a good deal of ice too. (Q.) Does that lead you to infer that they are mistaken when they say it was black? - (A.) I would not like to say that, my Lord. I do not know, of course; I was not there, but I never saw an iceberg of that kind. (Q.) Have you ever seen a growler? - (A.) These low bergs? (Q.) Yes? - (A.) Very seldom. (Q.) What is the colour of a growler? - (A.) White. (Q.) The same as an iceberg? - (A.) The same as an iceberg, only a smaller one. That is what I understand by a growler - a low-lying berg."
The Attorney-General:
Before passing from the page my friend read - he began at 21882 - would your Lordship mark the two earlier questions. I do not want my friend to bother to read them, but it will save my going back to them.
Sir Robert Finlay:
It is on the question of speed?
Continued >
