DEPOSITION OF JOSEPH BRUCE ISMAY, continued.
Q. You do not know whether they still use a more southerly route now at certain times of the year?
- I do not know what they do now.
Q. I think you said that you have no official connection with the Oceanic Company now?
- No, I resigned from the Oceanic Company on the 31st December, 1912, which took effect on the 30th June, 1913.
Q. You are not interested as a shareholder in the Oceanic Company, I take it?
- No, nor in the International Mercantile Marine Company.
Q. Are you interested as a bond holder or a debenture holder?
- I think I have got $20,000 of the bonds. I think that is all my interest in the Company.
Q. I have not asked you about the firm of Ismay, Imrie & Co whose name appears in some testimony. I think you said that was a dead letter.
- Yes, it is my property now.
Q. I would like you to explain what that firm was and is, and what connection they had with the White Star.
- They were the Managers of the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company.
Q. Was that composed of yourself alone at the time of the "Titanic” accident?
- No, Mr. Sanderson, and myself were partners at that time.
Q. Will you tell us what as Managers that firm did for the White Star?
- It managed the business.
Q. Would you say that would be doing, what we call in New York, acting as agents of the line?
- Yes. They had rather more authority, because Ismay & Co., were very large shareholders in the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company - in fact, the largest.
Q. Did they cease to be such shareholders after the Mercantile Marine bought up the control?
- Yes. The Mercantile Marine Company bought up the business of Ismay Imrie & Co., - everything excepting the name.
Q. I think you said that the designs or plans for the "Titanic" were submitted to the Oceanic Company from time to time - that is the builders' plans. Did those plans include the plans for the davits and lifeboats on the ship?
- I take it they would.
Q. Did you examine the plans from time to time at your interviews with Harland & Wolff, the builders?
- I saw them constantly.
Q. You had many discussions did you with Harland & Wolff over the various details of the plans of the "Titanic" and the "Olympic"?
- Many.
Q. Who was present at those conferences as a rule?
- It is very difficult to answer that question, because I think some of the juniors in the business used to take it in turns to go over when we had a meeting, so as to keep posted in what was going on.
Q. Did you attend yourself?
- Yes, very frequently, and our superintending Engineers, Marine Superintendents, and Victualling Superintendents.
Q. Did Lord Pirrie usually attend on behalf of the Shipbuilders?
- I think he was nearly always there.
Q. Did Mr. Carlisle sometimes attend?
- I think he would always be present at any meeting unless it was a purely informal one.
Q. Would the question of accepting or rejecting any plan or design be a matter of discussion between the builders and yourselves?
- It would be a matter of discussion between all present.
Q. With whom would the final acceptance or rejection of any design or plan lie?
- It was generally discussed and we tried to agree on one plan. I think as a rule we were nearly always unanimous in what was accepted.
Q. Did you see the design for the lifeboat equipment along with the other plans and designs for the ship?
- I have no recollection of doing so.
Q. Have you any doubt that you did see it?
- It is quite possible that I did see it, but I have no recollection of it; during the time the ship is being built you see hundreds of plans: she takes some years to build.
Q. I notice at Question 18665 you are asked - "Evidently you were not the manager who was responsible for examining this design. (A.) I saw the design I have no doubt -- I saw the design with the rest of the ship". That refers to the design with reference to the lifeboat accommodation. Does that accord with your recollection?
(Question objected to on the same ground)
- I have no recollection of ever seeing any particular design. I may have done so, but I have no recollection of it. What was the question to the answer you read then?
Q. I had better go back to Question 18664 - That will give you the connection: "If there was a question of accepting or rejecting a design which provided for greater lifeboat accommodation than you had on the 'Titanic', I want to ask you whether it is you yourself or some subordinate of yours or some associate of yours -- (A.) It would be done jointly between the shipbuilders and the managers of the White Star Line". Then the next question comes in, which I read to you before - "Evidently you were not the manager who was responsible for examining this design. (A.) I saw the design I - I have no doubt - I saw the design with the rest of the ship".
- I think that is quite likely so.
Q. After the accident I believe your Company did provide enough boats for all on board the ships did they not?
- Yes.
Q. Do you know what changes had to be made in the "Olympic" to provide that boatage.
- I do not know.
Q. Have you been on her since the change?
- No.
Q. Since the disaster I think you have given it as your opinion that there should be enough boats for those on the ship, have you not?
- Yes, from my experience.
Q. Is it a fair resume of your testimony as to speed to say ---
(Question objected to on the ground that some of the witness' testimony is irregular, that he is being examined in chief and ought to give his own evidence.)
Q. Is it fair to say from your testimony that unless it is clear that the captain or navigator can see far enough to avoid any ice at night, that the speed ought to be reduced?
- I say if a commander cannot see far enough ahead of him to clear any object, then I think he ought to reduce his speed, but as long as he can clear any object I do not see why he should reduce his speed.
Q. Of course ice is a more difficult object to see is it not at night than a vessel with lights on her?
- I have never had any experience of trying to see it.
Q. You would think so, would you not?
- That is a question of opinion. I have never seen it, you see.
Q. I believe you had the "Titanic" and "Olympic" constructed so that they would float with any two adjacent compartments full?
- My recollection is with the two largest compartments full which I think I may say is unusual, if not almost unknown.
Q. I object to that. Mr. Duke, you know, will bring that out.
- I beg your pardon.
Q. I believe these steamers of the White Star, that is the large ones, were not classed with Lloyds, were they?
- They were not, none of the White Star steamers are classed with Lloyds.
Q. Not the "Majestic" or the "Teutonic"?
- None of them.
Q. Are you familiar with the height to which the various watertight bulkheads were carried in the "Olympic"?
- No, that is a technical matter that we are guided in by the shipbuilders.
Q. Are you familiar with the plan which was furnished to us by the White Star people in New York and can you identify it as being a copy of the plan of the "Titanic"? (Handing plan.)
- No, I could not do that.
Q. Are you sufficiently versed in plans of ships to tell from plans like that where the bulkheads are and to what decks they go.
- No, I could not tell from that plan.
Q. You will Notice on the plans the words "W.T.B" under apparently a transverse bulkhead. Is that what is usually used to designate a watertight bulkhead on plans?
- Yes.
Q. And this plan does show does it not to what decks those bulkheads go. This is the plan which is marked "A.M.C.1".
- Yes, that does.
Q. The plan however does not state the thickness of the bulkhead?
- Not that I know of --- in fact, I am sure that it does not.
Q. Do you know yourself what the thickness of the various watertight bulkheads was on the "Titanic"?
- No, not the slightest idea.
Q. What documents would give that information correctly do you know? Would it require the specification or the detail plans?
- No, no detail plans that we would ever see would show it.
Q. The specifications would would they not?
- There is no specification drawn up. The ships are not built to a specification at all.
Q. It would require the detail plans from the builders to show that?
- Yes. I have no doubt the Board of Trade have it, they would all have to be submitted to the Board of Trade.
Q. If the watertight bulkheads had been higher than they were, would that have increased the time the ship would have floated after the accident?
- I really cannot express any opinion with regard to that.
Q. I refresh your recollection by reading Question 18816 before Lord Mersey: "May I put this to you? If the bulkheads in the 'Titanic' had gone much higher than they did, there would have been greater safety? (A.) I presume there would.”
(Question objected to, on the same ground)
- I presume they would. If you had carried them right up to the top of the ship, they would have been still more safe.
Q. In other words, the higher the bulkhead goes, the greater the safety; is that so?
- I presume that would be so.
Q. But the height does interfere somewhat with the accommodation in the ship?
- It should not do so; it is simply a question of cutting the watertight doors through the bulkhead.
Q. Were you familiar with the practice on board the ship of putting the Marconigrams with reference to navigation or derelicts or ice on the officers' board in the chartroom?
- It would be a natural thing to do.
Q. Were you familiar with that practice?
- No, I could not say I was familiar with it.
Q. I will refresh your recollection by reading Question 18328 before Lord Mersey?
(Subject to the same objection)
“Now I will come to the question of the 'Baltic' telegram. Did you before that particular Sunday know what was the practice with regard to Marconigram received by the officers on the ship relating to the navigation of the ship? Did you know what it was the practice to do with those Marconigrams as soon as they had been received? (A.) I believe the practice was to put them up in the chart-room for the officers." Then Question 18829: "Did you know that on Sunday, April the 14th? (A.) Yes."
- I presume that would be the natural thing to do.
Q. That answer was correct, was it, at the time you gave it?
- Yes. I do not see there is very much difference in the two, is there? – there may be.
Q. This Marconigram from the "Baltic" was a message affecting navigation, was it not?
- If the ice was in the track. Yes, it would be.
Q. How did you happen to keep the message in your pocket?
- I simply put it in my pocket, and I thought nothing more about it.
Q. Were you one of those who took upon themselves the determination of the number of boats to be carried?
- The Board of Trade regulated the number of boats we had to carry.
Q. There was nothing to prevent you from exceeding the requirement of the Board of Trade, was there?
- We did so.
Q. The question how far you would exceed it lay with you as one of the directors of the Company?
- It lay with the shipbuilders and the managers.
Q. Do you mean the directors of the Company?
- Yes, the managers.
Q. With reference to this test that you were to have of the ship on the Monday or Tuesday, was that test to he made without any arrangement or conference with the captain?
- So far as I was concerned, yes.
Q. In the ordinary course on board the ship would the chief engineer undertake to make such a test without conference with the captain?
- He would consult with the captain and with Harland & Wolff’s representatives on board the ship. It was a matter for those responsible for the navigation and the safety of the ship.
Q. I move to strike out the last part of the answer.
Q. Has the New Jersey Company ever interfered with your management of the White Star vessels on this side?
- No.
Q. Was the practical operation left to your Oceanic Company here?
- Do you mean to say the management of the White Star Line?
Q. Yes.
- It was left to the managers of the White Star Line.
Q. I will read you an extract from the instructions which were produced by your counsel, which are given to your commanders in the Canadian trade: "Field ice may be met off the Eastern edge of the Bank, across the Bank, and along the South Coast of Newfoundland. This ice is often very heavy and should not be entered unless it is obviously in loose patches. Lanes in the ice often come to an end, and it is unwise to enter them unless clear water can be seen beyond. It is usually the safest course to go South to get round the field ice, and commanders have permission to use their discretion to deviate from the track under such circumstances." Are those circumstances under which your commanders would be justified in deviating from the track such as you have mentioned today?
- Certainly.
Q. And those were the instructions given to the Canadian vessels - to your Canadian captains?
- I believe so.
Q. But not to those engaged in the New York trade?
- I do not think so.
Q. Were you or your directors familiar with a publication called "The United States Pilot of the East Coast, Part 2, second edition 1909", which was issued to steamship owners of vessels trading to New York?
- No, I do not think I ever saw it.
Q. It was a well-known publication giving information. Would your company make a practice of having a copy of it for the use of your captains?
- We would naturally give the commanders anything that we thought would be useful to have to aid in their navigation.
Q. I call your attention to page 34 of the "Pilot". "To these vessels" that is to say the large liners, one of the chief dangers lies in the probability of encountering masses of ice both in the form of bergs and of extensive fields of solid compact ice released at the breaking up of winter in the Arctic Region and drifted down by the Labrador Current across the direct route." Do you agree with that expression?
(Question objected to on the ground that the witness has never seen the book and cannot give evidence as to the contents of a book he has not seen if there were not any objection that the book itself must prove itself, and on the ground that the witness is not an expert)
- I cannot express any opinion on that; I am not a navigator.
Q. Did you know that the "Titanic" had not sufficient boats to accommodate all the passengers and crew on board?
- Yes.
Q. I will give you the figures and ask you if they are correct. It appears that she carried 1315 passengers and 892 crew. Would that be about right in accordance with your recollection?
- I have no recollection what the numbers were.
Q. Do you recollect that about 700, in round numbers, were saved?
- I really do not remember the figures.
Q. What reason can you give for the fact that the full number of passengers were not placed in the boats at the time of the disaster?
- I really had nothing to do with that.
Q. Have you any opinion yourself as to what the cause of it was?
- No, I have not.
Q. Have you any doubt that if you had suggested to Captain Smith on Sunday evening a reduction of the speed, that such speed would have been reduced?
- It is not me province to make any suggestion to the Commander of a ship.
Q. If you had made it, have you any doubt that it would have been followed?
- It never occurred to me as to make any suggestion to a man who was a duly qualified commander, holding a Board of Trade certificate.
Q. I will ask you to answer the question, please.
(Question objected to on the ground that the question dealt with a matter of pure speculation, and a speculation which it was not within the witness's province to exercise)
Q. I will repeat the question: Have you any doubt that if you had suggested to Smith on Sunday evening a reduction of the speed, that such speed would have been reduced?
- I should have thought that Captain Smith would have paid absolutely no attention at all to any suggestion coming from me as a layman.
Q. Did the captain know, so far as you are aware, of this intention to make the test of speed on Monday or Tuesday?
- It is the regular practice on all the new ships going out.
Q. Did he know, so far as you know, except from what you say may have been the general practice?
- No.
(Adjourned for a short time)