British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 34
Final Arguments, cont.
Then, my Lord, a great deal has been said during the course of the case, particularly at one time, about the lighting up of the two or three boilers at 8 o'clock on Sunday morning. Your Lordship will remember the discussion. Certainly now, having had the advantage of hearing the evidence, or gone into it very carefully, it seems to me that there is no importance to be attributed to it. I do not suggest upon the evidence, indeed I do not think that one can suggest, that the vessel was travelling at more than 75 revolutions, and 75 revolutions would give us 22 knots, and no doubt they had in mind that they were going to travel at 78 or 80 revolutions either on Monday or Tuesday, wherever they found a favourable moment to test the speed of the vessel for two or three hours, but it had nothing to do with the record passage, as we know now that it was never done before, and I do not think it is necessary to trouble your Lordship with any further observations upon it, for it throws really no light upon what actually did take place.
Now, my Lord, I think the precautions that were taken are sufficiently indicated by what your Lordship has already said, and that you have them present to your mind, and I am not going to dwell upon them. So far as I can make out altogether from the time of the first indication by Marconigram of the presence of ice, there was first the precaution taken by the Captain, which I will assume was taken in consequence of the Marconigrams, of proceeding the seven to ten miles to the Southward before he turned the corner; I will assume that.
Then there is the direction given to the look-out men, which they were to pass on, to keep a sharp look-out for ice and growlers, the exact words are "icebergs, small ice, and growlers."
My Lord, there is just one more point upon that to which attention has not been directed, which I think it is worth bearing in mind in connection with this, and that is that Mr. Lightoller says that his recollection of it was that he said that that order was to be passed on till daylight. That is at Question 13658 at page 307. Its value, of course, is obvious to your Lordship, that during the night there was this anxiety about going through this region of ice, and that this sharp look-out was to be kept - this precaution - right through until they got to daylight and could see better.
Now, my Lord, I think that really brings me very near the end of what I want to say about the speed. My Lord, I will not trouble you with passages as to the speed, because there is really no controversy, it is so well established by the evidence that I think the short statement I have made and the reference to the evidence is sufficient upon it.
The Commissioner:
You are entitled to assume that the speed was from 21 to 22 knots.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, and, as I say, I have assumed a little less than that.
Now, my Lord, what are the answers that are made? Upon that state of facts to which I have been referring - no doubling of the look-out, no reduction of speed, and substantially, except for telling the look-out to keep a sharp look-out, no precaution taken - I say advisedly no precaution taken - to spot the ice which they might expect to meet during the night. What is the answer that is made to the Court? Well, my Lord, really it is only this: it always gets back to the two points, that the conditions were so extraordinary that night, and so unknown to them, as they must say to make it of any value, that they did not know that they would be upon an iceberg so soon.
The Commissioner:
It was, as Sir Robert Finlay says, an accident.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, an accident; and I think my learned friend added, the kind of thing that must occur. Now, my Lord, I join issue most emphatically with that. I think this is just the kind of thing that must not occur, which need never occur. There are accidents no doubt against which you cannot possibly provide, but this is not one of them. If they had had no knowledge of ice, if they did not know that they were approaching a region of ice, if they had not had the Marconigrams and this had been suddenly, quite unexpectedly, an iceberg which had come down upon them, there is more reason for the excuse. But in view of what had happened, and what they knew about the region through which they were travelling, I do submit that it is idle for my learned friend to suggest that this is "just the kind of accident that must occur."
The Commissioner:
I do not think, Mr. Attorney, Sir Robert said it must occur; I do not think he meant it in that sense.
The Attorney-General:
It was the phrase he used; I think what he meant was that it was the kind of thing against which you cannot provide.
The Commissioner:
Yes; it is a kind of thing which you cannot foresee.
The Attorney-General:
Yes. That is what I am objecting so strongly to. That is exactly what I mean. I did not mean more than that. This is just exactly the kind of thing that you can foresee, which ought to have been foreseen, and that in the circumstances we are dealing with in this case, should have been foreseen, and all that you have to do in order to take precautions about it was what I ventured to point out was this very simple and slight precaution, but having very great effect upon the reduction of speed.
Now, my Lord, it has been said, I know, during the course of the case, and much reliance has been placed upon it by my learned friend Sir Robert Finlay and by the Witnesses who were called - a great body of evidence has been called before you to establish that it is the practice of Captains of liners to proceed at this or any other great rate of speed; in other words, not to reduce their speed, although they may expect to meet icebergs, and at night, provided that the weather is clear and think one must add also this), that in all probability what these Masters of vessels meant was that, provided they could see the iceberg at a sufficient distance to avoid it, they would not reduce speed; I doubt whether it comes really, when you analyse it, to more than that. If it does, my Lord, then I do beg respectfully to protest emphatically against it being accepted as the practice.
The Commissioner:
I do not think it was - I do not know. You must not assume that what I say is final, but it appears to me that what they mean is this: We always do go full speed though we have notice that there is ice in the vicinity, because we believe that it will always be possible for us to avoid the ice when we see it.
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
As you said some time ago, if that is all that is meant it is quite right.
The Attorney-General:
Yes; of course, I have nothing to say against it. But of course, there is another possible view; it has been indicated by some of them, and I will only say a word about it. I do not want to take up time with it. It is said that one of the reasons why they do it is in order to get away from the possibility of fog.
The Commissioner:
Yes, I know.
The Attorney-General:
That is one of the things they say, and certainly Mr. Ismay was very emphatic about it, and why I am referring to it, and dwelling upon it a little, is because some of the Witnesses (I will not trouble to give your Lordship the reference to them) certainly take the view that that would be right now, notwithstanding what had happened with reference to the "Titanic."
The Commissioner:
One Witness did.
The Attorney-General:
Yes. I think it was Mr. Passow, and certainly Mr. Ismay did as I understood him, and his evidence establishes it, and Mr. Sanderson was taking the same view, and really what they are saying and the way they are looking at it (and that is the reason why I am dwelling upon it) does strike one as rather strange, because I think it is a little appalling that they should take the view that that would be right now notwithstanding what has happened and notwithstanding the lesson that they have learned, for we now know that not only on board one vessel, the "Titanic," did they not see this iceberg, but they got into all this difficulty through the speed that they were going. And yet, notwithstanding all that, this is to be treated, apparently, as one of those very rare and exceptional things which one cannot be expected to foresee, and which would not alter their practice. The only reason why I am dwelling upon it is that I do ask your Lordship in any event and with all respect, at any rate to condemn the continuance of such a practice, so that not only may you make it possible to foresee, but that we may foresee. If that is not done we may have another similar catastrophe; and, therefore, it is that I am asking your Lordship to state emphatically what your view, if you agree with it, and the view of those assisting you, would be upon this.
My Lord, one other distinction has been drawn by these Witnesses, and it is not unimportant; I have no doubt it is present to your Lordship's mind. Witnesses were asked questions: Supposing you had a report of an iceberg or icebergs, would you reduce your speed? and then they have said, with the qualifications and assumptions to which I have just referred, that they would not, but they made this qualification, some of them at any rate, that that would not apply to an ice-field. Your Lordship will remember the broad distinction that was drawn between the ice-field and the icebergs. Of course, I am not an expert in these matters, but, so far as I am able to gather from the evidence, the reason is this, that you may be meeting an iceberg, or two icebergs, or three icebergs, without the proximity of an ice-field; but if you know that there are icebergs and ice-fields in the vicinity, then you do know that you are in the region in which there must be a considerable amount of ice. And there is the further difficulty which has been explained by some of those who were on the Canadian Lines, that if you get into an ice-field and are surrounded by it there may be trouble to your propeller if you continue along your way; you may get into a lane and find it closed, and you may not be able to get in, or you may not be able to get out, and you have got ice close up against the propeller of your vessel which may affect the vessel, and which at any rate it is very advisable to avoid.
Now, my Lord, in this case the reports that the Captain had got were of both ice-fields and icebergs, and therefore all those precautions which ought to have been taken and which would have been taken by those who thought icebergs or ice-fields were to be avoided, should have been taken in this particular case. I am not going to make any comment upon the instructions that were issued. Your Lordship will remember that we have had a good deal of evidence about them. Apparently both with the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company and other Canadian lines, where they would presumably expect to meet more field ice, there is a specific direction with regard to field ice. With the lines trading with the United States they have merely a general one - I say general because it has no specific reference to ice. I am not inclined myself to quarrel with that view, at any rate, so far as to suggest that there is anything wrong or blameworthy in their not having given specific instructions as to ice. No doubt these vessels would encounter, and do encounter ice, and the Commanders have to exercise their judgment it is left to them, and, if necessary, they have to deviate their course in order to avoid the ice. Your Lordship will remember we were told that that is what they do, and there were some reports produced with regard to it. I am not going into that matter save to say this: that it certainly would be desirable in any event, whatever view your Lordship may take of this case and of the conduct of those who were responsible for the navigation, that some instructions should be given, if you think fit to make the recommendation to the Masters of vessels, that when they have reports of this character they should go at a moderate speed during the night. I know the difficulty, and I am fully aware that your Lordship appreciates it, of saying at what speed; none can say that. The reason why I use the term "moderate" is because it was found in the International Regulations which were made for preventing collisions at sea, and in the Article - I think it is Article 16 - which refers to what a vessel must do in mist, or fog, or falling snow, the order given by the Rule is to go at moderate speed, and then it is left to the Courts to interpret what that should be in the particular conditions of day. I do not think one can be more precise about it than that, and I called your Lordship's attention to it as I thought you might like to have it.
The Commissioner:
I am much obliged to you. Have you got a copy of it?
The Attorney-General:
Yes, it shall be handed up to you, my Lord. It is Article 16: "Every vessel shall in a fog, falling snow, or heavy rainstorms go at a moderate speed, having careful regard to the existing circumstances and conditions."
The Commissioner:
Has every Captain a copy of this in his cabin?
The Attorney-General:
Oh, yes, my Lord, I think so. Of course, it is a thing he is bound to know.
The Commissioner:
Then I do not see what the advantage is of putting it into the
Sailing Directions. It is issued, as I understand, by the Company.
The Attorney-General:
The point of it is - I am only referring to it for this reason - that it does not relate to ice - that is the point of it.
The Commissioner:
Oh, yes; I beg your pardon.
The Attorney-General:
The only reason I am referring to it is to show what is done when you are dealing with fog. I thought it would give some sort of guidance to the Court when you are dealing with these things, bearing in mind that those Rules are the result of International conference.
The Commissioner:
How did they come to omit ice?
The Attorney-General:
I did not know, my Lord. They do not seem to have considered it at all. And, of course, you have got to bear in mind that it is only for preventing collisions at sea; under the Merchant Shipping Act those regulations have to be made only for preventing collisions between vessels at sea. They have no application except that.
The Commissioner:
It is a sort of sailing article, Article 29.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, that is seamanship, really. That means, of course, that there might be such exceptional circumstances (which I have no doubt your Lordship has had to consider when you were President of the Admiralty Court) which relieve a man when he did not obey a particular Rule.
The Commissioner:
It is not quite that I mean. What I mean is this. Article 29 says: "Nothing in this Rule shall exonerate any person from the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of the sea or by the special circumstances of the case."
The Attorney-General:
Yes, my Lord, but still that would not apply to this case. It has no application to the impact of a vessel with an iceberg.
The Commissioner:
No.
The Attorney-General:
My Lord, I will just remind you of what was done for the purpose of meeting the serious and grave difficulties raised by the foundering of the "Titanic" subsequently, as something which also has to be borne in mind, and which your Lordship will have to consider with regard to one of the questions (it comes in its proper order now), and I will be very brief about it, because there is no controversy, and that is with regard to tracks. There is a specific question directed to it, and, of course, your Lordship will have to consider it. Your Lordship will remember that the way it stands is this, that subsequently, after the "Titanic" disaster was reported, there was an alteration made which lengthened the voyage about 220 miles. That is at page 602 of the Note, Question 23588. A chart was handed up which showed your Lordship what had been done. The consequence of that alteration is that they proceed much more to the Southward, and it has the effect of lengthening this voyage some 220 miles, and apparently, as I gather from reference to the chart, that was arrived at on the 19th of April by the Hydrographic Office in the United States - according to their chart.
The Commissioner:
Can you give me the reference to the question?
The Attorney-General:
It is Question 23588, page 602, my Lord, and page 603 too. My Lord, the way that matter stands, if I may state it to your Lordship quite shortly, is that in 1908 there was the agreement arrived at by which what I may call a main highway was made out to the United States, and another main highway for vessels home from the States by agreement - that is 1898; and from that time and at that time there was an alternative Southern route taken which would be resorted to when they expected much ice during these months. That has, in fact, been resorted to three times since 1898, and that your Lordship will find at page 477, Questions 19293 and 19311.
The Commissioner:
By whom?
The Attorney-General:
By these lines who were parties.
The Commissioner:
By one or other of the lines, do you mean?
The Attorney-General:
No, by all. As I understand it, what had happened was that reports came in of ice along the track, what I may call the normal Southern track, and in consequence of that the lines agreed to an alternative Southern track for the time being, and then what they did was to deviate. And I was going to make this observation about it, that it does look as if that kind of thing is only done when they do agree, and one can see the difficulties that there are - competition between the lines in the one lengthening the voyage if the other does not; just in the same way if one reduced his speed and the other did not; and one can understand, therefore, very well why it is that many of these Captains (many of the Captains of competing steamers) say, "Oh, we do not reduce our speed; we go full speed ahead at night." There is keen competition no doubt to make a short voyage. It may be said that the public wishes it; but I think, as your Lordship said earlier, that cannot excuse or justify anybody in going at an excessive speed when he knows there is danger ahead. But that is the position - it applies both to the track and to the speed.
Then, my Lord, at page 663 there is a discussion that shows what I have just referred to - that on the 19th April, 1912, the new track, making 220 miles more voyage, was resorted to. It is only to give your Lordship the reference. It is after the event, of course, to show what actually happened.
The Commissioner:
That would lengthen, as I understand, the passage to New York by about 12 hours, by the quicker boats?
The Attorney-General:
Yes, it makes it to that extent safer.
Now, my Lord, I think the only other thing to which I want to direct your attention in this connection, and that I can do very shortly, is what the evidence is as to the colour of the particular iceberg seen. Of course if you come to the conclusion that whether it was a black or a dark iceberg or not is immaterial for this purpose, then it is unnecessary for me to refer to this evidence; but if you think that which is relied upon as an abnormal condition - that is the dark colour of the iceberg - is of any importance, then it will be necessary to consider what the evidence is about, and I will state it really in a sentence, and give the reference to it, so that they may appear upon the Note so as not to take up time unnecessarily with it. The effect of it is this, that there are only two Witnesses who state positively that they saw it, they are Fleet and Lee and they are the only ones. Mr. Boxhall says he fancies he saw it after the event, after he came up, but it is very difficult to place much reliance upon that. He saw it, he says, about two minutes after he came up on deck, or he thinks he saw it. But I think that really exhausts the evidence upon it. It is very curious that there is so very little evidence. That is all the evidence you have got in this case as to the colour of that iceberg, except perhaps one fact which I do not think adds anything to it, but I will mention it in case my learned friend thinks it does, and that is that Lucas, one of the Witnesses, says he saw ice on the well deck where it fell, and that it was of a darkish white. I do not know that it adds anything to it, because what a piece of ice that had fallen from the berg on to the deck would show as a colour is not necessarily a key as to what you would see in the mass, and I do not think it adds anything. Lee is at page 83, Question 2441 to 2444, and Fleet is at page 410; he is the one who first saw it, Question 17277. The passage I referred to in Mr. Boxhall's evidence is at page 359, Questions 15496 to 15501. And really that is all the evidence you have got about it and what I am going to submit to you, if your Lordship pleases, is that really you have not apparently reliable evidence to find as a fact, if it were necessary to determine it, that this was one of those icebergs which capsized, or which was presenting its dark face. I think the only explanation of why it is said that it was that kind of iceberg, was that there was not any phosphorescent light about this iceberg. There was certainly no ice-blink according to the evidence, and I do not suppose there would be on any iceberg of this character, and I do not think there has been any suggestion that there was - but there was none; there was no ripple around the base of the berg at the waterline. That is independent of the colour of the berg, but it is one of the things relied upon; and there was no white outline at the top of the berg above the water, and that I think is the whole of the evidence about it.
Now, my Lord, when you are dealing with it on a night of this kind, I think that all you can say about it is, when you bear in mind that this was a low-lying berg, 60 to 80 feet high.
The Commissioner:
Who was the Witness who saw it vanishing on the starboard side of the ship?
The Attorney-General:
That is Shiers, my Lord, but I did not think that that came to anything.
The Commissioner:
I think he describes it as something of a grey colour.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, I did not think his evidence was of any value.
The Commissioner:
Perhaps he did not. I am sorry to disturb you, but it struck me he did say that he had seen it when it was vanishing.
The Attorney-General:
He did say it, my Lord. It is at page 111. It is quite plain that he is speaking about it there. It is the colour I wanted, and I do not fancy he says anything about that. I do not think he said anything about colour. He did say: "I saw the berg that was going away." You are quite right in that, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
Yes.
The Attorney-General:
But I do not think it threw any light upon it. This is the nearest I think we shall ever get to it - that is why I did not pay any attention to it - Question 4544, at page 111: "About how far off? - (A.) I could not say; it was very dim then; I could just see it."
The Commissioner:
Yes, that is what I had in my mind. "It was very dim; I could just see it." You need not trouble any further about it.
The Attorney-General:
Very well, my Lord. Now, my Lord, there is a little evidence and of value upon this question of icebergs, which your Lordship no doubt has in mind, of Captain Rostron, of the "Carpathia," and Sir Ernest Shackleton. I mean upon the point, the specific point, which was also deposed to by some other Witnesses, of the dark iceberg; and showing that it was the kind of thing that you ought to expect; and there was also the evidence of Mr. Lightoller, to which I have referred. Now, my Lord, I only want to call your attention to the passages there again, because I have summarised it. I have stated what the effect of it is, and I have no doubt it is present to your Lordship's mind. The effect of it really is this, that it is the kind of thing that every reasonable man must expect when he gets amongst ice, that some of the icebergs, or one of the icebergs, may present this dark appearance and will be difficult to detect. That is all that is necessary for the point that I am upon.
The Commissioner:
This dark colour is seen, is it not, after the berg has turned turtle?
The Attorney-General:
Yes, it is; but I am not sure that it is confined to that. Certainly that is the evidence that that is what happened. One Witness, Captain Cannons, I think, told us that he was watching and he saw it happen to one; he saw it turn turtle, and when he saw a projection above the water it was a much darker colour; and Lightoller refers to it in the same way. The natural consequence of all that is that you must expect icebergs to turn turtle as they are travelling South, and that it is just one of the things against which you must guard. That is all that it is necessary for me to say. Captain Rostron did refer to it at page 743, Question 25461 to 25465. They are very short; perhaps I might just read them. I had been dealing with icebergs which present a dark appearance, and I said: "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.) Nor how it is going to present itself to you in appearance? - (A.) No. 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," and he says, "Yes." Now, my Lord, I submit that that is conclusive upon the point, and quite clear.
Sir Ernest Shackleton, at page 719, was quite definite and emphatic about it, too, in the light of his very great experience, and he gave two instances, your Lordship may recollect. They were rather slightingly referred to by my learned friend, Sir Robert Finlay - no doubt, a little pressed by them - but they were instances by Sir Ernest Shackleton of what had happened to him when he was an ordinary passenger on a vessel, not on the "Nimrod," but when he was an ordinary passenger on a vessel going across the Atlantic, and he says this at page 719, that in April, 1897, he saw a blue-black berg, a low-lying berg, he calls it, when he was crossing on this very track; and he says that in 1903 he saw the same thing again, and he says he saw several bergs in the track. The first one I referred to was in the month of April, 1897; the other was in the month of May, 1903, and there the difference was that he saw several bergs, and amongst them a black berg - that is the position. And in the light more especially of the passage to which I have called attention of Mr. Lightoller's evidence, also showing that he was well aware of the same object, of the existence of this kind of iceberg - I think it is page 307 - I do not propose to trouble your Lordship with any detail with regard to it.
Now, my Lord, my submission upon this part of the case, upon which I have concluded what I desire to say now is this, that in view of all those facts and circumstances to which I have called your attention that preceded the sighting of the berg, a reasonably prudent navigator ought to have reduced his speed, and I say further that he ought to have doubled his look-out, and that the reasonable precautions to have taken would have been both; but certainly he ought not to have neglected either the one or the other. My Lord, then I say further, that in assuming your Lordship hesitates to come to that conclusion, and you think, if the direction of your mind was that way, that you would not express any view upon it because you were not called upon to do so.
The Commissioner:
That is what occurs to me just as it occurs to me in the case of the Captain of the "Californian."
The Attorney-General:
Yes, my Lord. Well, I have put the consideration before your Lordship and of course I leave it there, and your Lordship will decide of course as you think fit.
The Commissioner:
It does not prevent me finding that the cause of the accident was what you suggest it was.
The Attorney-General:
No. Still, your Lordship, of course will answer the questions as you think fit, but having taken over 30 days in the case, and having gone into all the facts, it did seem to me right that I should put it before you so that if you come to the conclusion - and I know you would not come to a conclusion unless you were driven to it, because you are dealing with the case of a man who is dead -
The Commissioner:
I said a long time ago that I doubted whether I ought to find a dead man, or a man who is not represented, guilty of negligence.
The Attorney-General:
Your Lordship will decide upon that when you come to your judgment.
The Commissioner:
Taking the "Californian," that man is not represented. He came here merely as a Witness.
The Attorney-General:
Who?
The Commissioner:
Captain Lord.
The Attorney-General:
Oh, yes, my Lord, he was represented.
The Commissioner:
Yes, he is here in the sense that somebody sent by his owners did speak for him.
The Attorney-General:
Then, my Lord, I would sooner deal with that separate, if I may; I know what your Lordship has in your mind.
The Commissioner:
What I mean is that he has not been cited here to defend himself against the charge made against him of negligence.
The Attorney-General:
Your Lordship is speaking now of the Captain of the "Californian"?
The Commissioner:
Yes, Captain Lord.
The Attorney-General:
But that is quite a different thing.
The Commissioner:
I am not sure. You are talking at present about Captain Smith. What I am pointing out is this, that Captain Smith could not be here; he is dead; he could not have been cited. But the Captain of the "Californian" is here really merely as a Witness. He has not been cited to answer a charge of negligence, and I have great reluctance to find people guilty of negligence when they are not cited and charged with it, and have not had a proper opportunity of answering the charge.
The Attorney-General:
I will deal with Captain Lord's case, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
Later on. I am only suggesting that there is an analogy between the two cases; I may be wrong, you know, but that is what I am suggesting.
The Attorney-General:
Well, so long as your Lordship has present to your mind what the position is with regard to the case and you have all the considerations, at any rate, which have occurred to me to present to you, that the speed was excessive, I should submit that it is beyond all question in this case upon the evidence as it stands; but naturally that does not dispose of the other points. It is quite possible, as your Lordship says, to treat that simply for the purpose of this case as a fact, and to leave it there.
Now, my Lord, that is really all I need trouble you about with regard to that. The result of it in any event is that the question as to the cause of the disaster, and Question 14 as to the speed are, I submit, plain apart from all these considerations that I have put to you, and, my Lord, having placed all the facts before you I am content to leave it. It certainly is no part of my duty, and it is the last thing I should desire to press your Lordship to find negligence against Captain Smith, and I quite appreciate what your Lordship says, that he is not represented. At the same time as I leave it, I do think it necessary to put before you this, that having enquired into all these facts and circumstances, we have gone into all that has happened with regard to the navigation of this vessel, and if you do come to the conclusion that it was negligent navigation I submit there is nothing to prevent the Court from saying it. That is the point I want to make clear.
Now, my Lord, I am going to other matters, and probably your Lordship would think it right to adjourn.
The Commissioner:
Do you intend to come back this afternoon?
The Attorney-General:
No, my Lord.
Mr. Laing:
May I correct a statement of the Attorney-General (I did not want to interrupt him) which arose about Mr. Ismay's opinion. My Lord, my friend the Attorney-General said in the course of his argument that Mr. Ismay's view had been expressed that the question of speed in future was one which he had formed an opinion about. That is incorrect. May I read what Mr. Ismay said, because I wish to correct it. He was asked: "Is it still your view that your Captains and Officers are discharging their duty in crossing the Atlantic, when ice is reported to them, in going ahead at full speed and taking no extra precautions? - (A.) So long as they can see the object far enough ahead to be able to avoid it." That is all that Mr. Ismay said.
The Attorney-General:
I agree that that is what he said, and I am not putting it any higher than that.
Mr. Laing:
I thought you did.
The Attorney-General:
No; that is exactly what I was saying.
(Adjourned to Monday next at 10.30 o'clock at Caxton Hall.)
