Page 1Page 2 The American court of inquiry held its first meeting on February 21 . . . . In carefully qualified statements, Sigsbee . . . set forth his position. The Spanish knew he was coming (so he understood) . . . . The Maine had coaled at Key West. He was certain the coal was inspected before it was brought on board (he could not remember the actual event but such was the invariable custom). . . . He knew that the fire alarms worked, because they occasionally went off at temperatures below that for which they were set. To the best of his knowledge, all regulations concerning the stowage of inflammables . . . were strictly enforced, for he had given the proper orders. Although he could not be precise as to the time, he was certain that he had inspected the magazines during the last three months. . . . From his testimony emerges the portrait of an individual who was unfamiliar with his ship. He might have been a good seaman and a brave man, but perhaps also the victim of the new technology which was transforming the Navy. He might not have understood the complexities of the ship he commanded. He might have suffered from the division in the Navy which separated line officers from the shipboard engineers. Many line officers looked down upon engineering. The vagueness and uncertainty in his testimony might stem from a belief that giving an order was tantamount to its execution. Whatever the reasons, he appears to have been isolated from the day-to-day routine. –Hyman G. Rickover, How the Battleship Maine Was Destroyed, 1976 Which statement best describes Admiral Rickover’s opinion of Sigsbee’s account? It is unreliable because the captain’s knowledge of the ship was limited. It is unreliable because it does not provide enough details of the explosion. It is reliable because the captain was a naval and engineering expert. It is reliable because it is a firsthand account of the ship’s sinking.