But they don't compel my admiration, whereas the conduct
of this Inquiry does. And as it is pretty certain to be attacked, I take
this opportunity to deposit here my nickel of appreciation. Well,
lately, there came before it witnesses responsible for the designing of
the ship. One of them was asked whether it would not be advisable to
make each coal-bunker of the ship a water-tight compartment by means of a
suitable door.
The answer to such a question should have been, "Certainly," for it is
obvious to the simplest intelligence that the more water-tight spaces you
provide in a ship (consistently with having her workable) the nearer you
approach safety. But instead of admitting the expediency of the
suggestion, this witness at once raised an objection as to the
possibility of closing tightly the door of a bunker on account of the
slope of coal. This with the true expert's attitude of "My dear man, you
don't know what you are talking about."
Now would you believe that the objection put forward was absolutely
futile? I don't know whether the distinguished President of the Court
perceived this. Very likely he did, though I don't suppose he was ever
on terms of familiarity with a ship's bunker.
Pages:
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339