The question is what ought the master to have done. I am advised that
with the knowledge of the proximity of ice which the master had, two
courses were open to him: The one was to stand well to the southward
instead of turning up to a westerly course; the other was to reduce
speed materially as night approached. He did neither. The alteration of
the course at 5.50 p. m. was so insignificant that it can not be
attributed to any intention to avoid ice. This deviation brought the
vessel back to within about 2 miles of the customary route before 11.30
p. m. And there was certainly no reduction of speed. Why, then, did the
master persevere in his course and maintain his speed? The answer is to
be found in the evidence. It was shown that for many years past, indeed,
for a quarter of a century or more, the practice of liners using this
track when in the vicinity of ice at night had been in clear weather to
keep the course, to maintain the speed and to trust to a sharp lookout
to enable them to avoid the danger. This practice, it was said, had been
justified by experience, no casualties having resulted from it. I accept
the evidence as to the practice and as to the immunity from casualties
which is said to have accompanied it. But the event has proved the
practice to be bad. Its root is probably to be bound in competition and
in the desire of the public for quick passages rather than in the
judgment of navigators. But unfortunately experience appeared to justify
it. In these circumstances I am not able to blame Capt. Smith. He had
not the experience which his own misfortune has afforded to those whom
he has left behind, and he was doing only that which other skilled men
would have done in the same position. It was suggested at the bar that
he was yielding to influences which ought not to have affected him; that
the presence of Mr. Ismay on board and the knowledge which he perhaps
had of a conversation between Mr. Ismay and the chief engineer at
Queenstown about the speed of the ship and the consumption of coal
probably induced him to neglect precautions which he would otherwise
have taken. But I do not believe this. The evidence shows that he was
not trying to make any record passage or indeed any exceptionally quick
passage. He was not trying to please anybody, but was exercising his own
discretion in the way he thought best. He made a mistake, a very
grievous mistake, but one in which, in face of the practice and of past
experience, negligence can not be said to have had any part; and in the
absence of negligence it is, in my opinion, impossible to fix Capt.
Smith with blame. It is, however, to be hoped that the last has been
heard of the practice and that for the future it will be abandoned for
what we now know to be more prudent and wiser measures. What was a
mistake in the case of the _Titanic_ would without doubt be negligence
in any similar case in the future.