We won't grumble about his staunchness, but we are entitled to weigh his arguments, which are not altogether sound.

He owns the situation is awkward and the outlook dark, but he urges us to trust the officers who got the ship in danger.

One feels this is not remarkably logical.

Then he declares nobody else could have kept the fleet running.
I think the claim is rash.

In this city we are conservative and names long known in business circles carry an exaggerated weight; we expect a man to work wonders because his father started a prosperous line, and another because he long since made a lucky plunge.