Deposition of EDWARD WILDING, contd.
Q. Was that forepeak one of those six sections?
- It was.
Q. And the bulkhead between No. 5 and No. 4 boiler rooms was carried up?
- Yes.
Q. So that the water couldn't come over from No. 4 into No. 5?
- Yes.
Q. I don't think I asked you the thickness of the plating of the vessel.
- The shell plating is 20/20ths of one inch; of course, doubled, as I mentioned this morning.
Q. What was the thickness of the watertight bulkheads?
- From the bottom up, it is shown on the bulkhead plans which you have; not having seen it for a long time I can't be sure; I should say 56/100ths was the thickness.
Q. Speaking of the collapsible boats; are they really large rafts with bulwarks of canvas that can be raised up?
- Yes, and the bottom of one is shaped something like a scow.
Q. Are there air chambers in the bottom?
- The raft is constructed in two ways; either with air chambers or by filling them with cork, as in the earlier boats.
Q. I have refreshed my recollection from Mr. Peskett's testimony, where he was asked about the height of the watertight bulkheads in the Mauretania and he mentions them as going as high as -- I see that Mr. Peskett testified at page 550 at the Mersey Inquiry, in speaking of the Mauretania, he says that the height above the waterline of the various watertight compartments are as follows:
[21221] "Taking the waterline to be 33 feet, the height of No. 1 bulkhead is 34 feet above the waterline, and taking the No. 2 bulkhead 23 feet above the waterline; the next ones, 22 feet, 20, 19, 17, 17, 17, 18, 19, 22."
Does that accord with your recollection as to the approximate heights?
- Mr. Peskett was on oath; he had a plan to measure from. I have no doubt it is right.
Q. In view of that fact should you say that the height of those bulkheads was about the same as the Titanic?
- My recollection is that you won't find the average very different.
Q. Wasn't one of the bulkheads of the Titanic only about 11 feet above the waterline?
- I believe so; I gave you the figures this morning. Yes, 11 feet 6.
Q. Isn't that very much less than the Mauretania, 17 being the lowest?
- That is less than the lowest on the Mauretania, but I think the average remains very nearly the same.
Q. I see also that Mr. Peskett testified that the watertight bulkheads of the Mauretania extended as follows: The peak bulkhead goes to the B deck.
- Unless you have the plan that does not convey anything.
Q. Then he says the boat deck is the highest and then comes A and then B deck.
- That is the same, but owing to the different character of the ships it does not really convey the same thing; it is the same name, I agree.
Q. You don't know whether the Titanic had more decks than the Mauretania?
- I think she had one more, because I think the Mauretania had nine and we had ten.
BY MR. BROUGHAM:
Q. Inner skins were known to the shipbuilding art in the period 1909 to 1912, were they not?
- They were known in 1850; you would find them described in the Great Eastern.
Q. She also had longitudinal watertight bulkheads, had she not?
- She had.
Q. And watertight decks?
- I am not sure about that.
Q. All of the bulkheads were carried up to a watertight deck?
- To a weathertight deck, to the weather deck, which was weathertight.
Q. You don't know whether it was watertight or not?
- I could not say; I have the book, but I have not looked at it for years.
Q. You then, at the time the Titanic was being built, deemed inner skins a desirable protection against certain emergencies, did you not?
- If we considered it --
Q. I am asking you a leading question.
- You are asking me a leading question and in a form in which it is not easy to answer.
Q. Give us the best answer you can.
- My difficulty in answering is that it is very difficult to separate my knowledge now from my knowledge then.
Q. You weren't called upon to express your judgment at that time?
- I wasn't called on to judge that point at that time.
Q. And you were never called upon to express your judgment about the general plan of the ship either, were you?
- Structurally, yes.
Q. Then merely the structural details?
- In the sense that I was responsible for the ship being of adequate strength, and so on.
Q. Precisely. Those are the details.
- Yes, oh, yes.
Q. Lord Pirrie designed the ship in its general molded shape, and all that sort of thing, did he not? The general size and length?
- General size, yes.
Q. And appearance?
- And appearance, yes.
Q. And what else? Did you see his first plan or design?
- No; I prepared that myself. I prepared the first plan that was discussed for that purpose; it was design A.
Q. He asked you to do that?
- On written instructions from him.
Q. From him, as acting for the White Star Line?
- Well, that I couldn't say. He says, "Prepare a plan." You don't write back and ask your chief why.
Q. They didn't go into structural details as to size and thickness of plates and so on?
- No, he gave dimensions; a proposed vessel of so and so.
Q. Did he give you the number of decks?
- No.
Q. Or subdivisions of any, kind?
- I believe so, that she should float if any two compartments were flooded, was one of the conditions.
Q. But as to the number of subdivisions of the compartments?
- No.
Q. And how many plans did you have before you got to a plan that gave 15 transverse bulkheads?
- I think the ship was growing; she grew bigger, and I think it was the fourth.
Q. The fourth general plan?
- The fourth general plan; the fourth or fifth.
Q. And these general plans were discussed between Harland & Wolff and the White Star Line, were they not?
- I presume so; I was not present at such discussions.
Q. And the thing was crystallizing as a result of conferences between the representatives of Harland & Wolff and the representatives of the steamship company?
- Undoubtedly.
Q. And had it crystallized by the time this contract letter was written?
- Yes, at the time that letter was written it had crystallized, because the contract letter gave new dimensions from anything we had previously worked out.
Q. It had crystallized after the discussed dimensions had been agreed upon?
- Yes.
Q. Then as the result of that your further plans were prepared in accordance with those changes?
- Yes.
Q. And from time to time, after the new plans of all the added details of construction were prepared?
- Added details of construction? There had been no details prepared up to that time.
Q. They were added to the plans already in existence?
- After the later plans for details were agreed upon.
Q. And each one of them was prepared separately and submitted and discussed?
- No, never. Details of structure are never submitted to the White Star Line.
Q. Well, perhaps I don't know enough about the situation to put my question in the way I mean; dividing up into staterooms, do you call that structural details?
- No.
Q. Dividing up into compartments, do you call that structural details?
- No.
Q. Those plans in regard to dividing the ship up into subdivisions by transverse bulkheads were submitted -
- I have already testified, I think, in answer to yourself.
Q. They were submitted to the White Star Line and discussed?
- Yes.
Q. How many sets before they finally crystallized into a definite number, were made?
- Only one; one was submitted and approved.
Q. And that was based upon the plan of having any two compartments flooded and yet having the ship float?
- Yes.
Q. You have said that you actually achieved some greater floatability before that.
- Yes; that there was a good margin.
Q. So that if the three forward compartments -- that is, the forepeak, No. 1 and No. 2 holds -- had been flooded, she would have floated?
- Yes.
Q. Also if No. 3 hold had been flooded as well she would have floated?
- With the draft at the time of the accident, yes.
Q. All you know about the draft is what you were told?
- What I saw at Southampton before she sailed. I knew what she sailed at.
Q. And that draft was what?
- I have a note of it.
Q. I would like that.
- (referring to note) The Titanic's departure draft was 33 feet 8 inches forward and 34 feet 4 inches aft.
Q. I don't know whether you know anything about it from your own knowledge, but I gather from Mr. Carlisle's testimony that when it came to the matter of boating the ship, putting on lifeboats, he asked Mr. Welin to submit plans showing davits capable of handling three boats for each pair of davits. Do you know anything about that, of your own knowledge?
- I have seen original letters, nothing more.
Q. I find on close examination of the testimony that Mr. Carlisle says that he ordered davits to take on each set four boats (page 555). He was referring to the Welin davits that are shown in the photograph Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9.
-
That I couldn't say; those davits were not then ordered.
Q. Did you yourself order these Welin davits?
- No.
Q. When were they ordered?
- I couldn't tell you offhand, though I can find out.
Q. He said they were ordered in the month of June, 1910
-
That is about right.
Q. And that is what he says; that he ordered davits to take four boats, each set of davits?
- Probably, yes.
Q. Then you think he was referring to these same davits shown in this same photograph?
- It would be an assumption to say so; I can't carry it any further than that. My difficulty in accepting it is that I don't see how those can carry four lifeboats.
Q. I said boats; not lifeboats. With the qualification as I eliminate what you inject, you will say this, will you, that it will handle four boats?
- Certainly; those, I know can handle up to about eight boats, of a certain type.
Q. You are referring to the davits shown in Exhibit 9?
- Yes. It. could handle eight Berthon boats.
Q. It could handle how many lifeboats?
- Two; one on deck and another inboard.
Q. And one swung outboard too?
- You can't carry them that way in the North Atlantic.
Q. They are carrying them on some boats that way, are they not?
- Never in winter. You can carry them temporarily that way in fine weather, of course; but it is not a permanent arrangement.
Q. But you can carry two permanently?
- You can carry two permanently.
Q. You may have more located inboard to be shifted, if you have the shipping machinery?
- Certainly.
Q. And on the Imperator and the Vaterland you know that they do have such arrangements?
Objected to.
Decision reserved.
- I have seen photographs indicating that.
Adjourned till Friday, May 14, 1915, at 9:30 A. M.