Page 945
Wreck Commissioners' Court.
SCOTTISH HALL,
BUCKINGHAM GATE,
Wednesday, 3rd July, 1912.
PROCEEDINGS
WIITH
THE RIGHT HON. LORD MERSEY,
Wreck Commissioner of the United Kingdom,
WITH
REAR ADMIRAL THE HON. S. A. GOUGH-CALTHORPE, C.V.O., R.N.,
CAPTAIN A. W. CLARKE,
COMMANDER F. C. A. LYON, R.N.R.,
PROFESSOR J. H. BILES, LL.D., D.Sc.,
MR. E. C. CHASTON, R.N.R.
Acting as Assessors.
ON A FORMAL INVESTIGATION
ORDERED BY THE BOARD OF TRADE INTO THE
LOSS OF THE S. S. "TITANIC."
THIRTY-SIXTH DAY.
THE RIGHT HON. SIR RUFUS ISAACS, K.C., M.P. (Attorney-General), SIR JOHN SIMON, K.C., M.P. (Solicitor-General), MR. BUTLER ASPINALL, K.C., MR. S.A.T. ROWLATT and MR. RAYMOND ASQUITH (instructed by Sir R. Ellis Cunliffe, Solicitor to the Board of Trade) appeared as Counsel on behalf of the Board of Trade.
THE RIGHT HON. SIR ROBERT FINLAY, K.C., M.P., MR. F. LAING, K.C., MR. MAURICE HILL, K.C., and MR. NORMAN RAEBURN (instructed by Messrs. Hill, Dickinson and Co.) appeared as Counsel on behalf of the White Star Line.
MR. THOMAS SCANLAN, M.P. (instructed by Mr. Smith, Solicitor), appeared as Counsel on behalf of the National Sailors' and Firemen's Union of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the personal representatives of several deceased members of the crew and of survivors who were members of the Union. (Admitted on application.)
MR. BOTTERELL (instructed by Messrs. Botterell and Roche) appeared on behalf of the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom. (Admitted on application.)
MR. THOMAS LEWIS appeared on behalf of the British Seafarers' Union. (Admitted on application.)
MR. L. S. HOLMES (of Messrs. Miller, Taylor and Holmes of Liverpool) appeared on behalf of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild. (Admitted on application.)
MR. COTTER appeared on behalf of the National Union of Stewards. (Admitted on application.)
MR. HAMAR GREENWOOD, M.P. (instructed by Messrs. Pritchard and Sons), watched proceedings on behalf of the Allan Line Steamship Company; and (instructed by Messrs. William A. Crump and Son) also on behalf of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
MR. ROCHE (instructed by Messrs. Charles G. Bradshaw and Waterson) appeared on behalf of the Marine Engineers' Association. (Admitted on application.)
MR. A. CLEMENT EDWARDS, M.P. (instructed by Messrs. Helder Roberts and Co.), appeared as Counsel on behalf of the Dock, Wharf, Riverside and General Workers' Union of Great Britain and Ireland. (Admitted on application.)
MR. W. D. HARBINSON (instructed by Mr. Farrell) appeared on behalf of the third class passengers. (Admitted on application.)
MR. C. ROBERTSON DUNLOP watched the proceedings on behalf of the owners and officers of the s.s. "Californian" (Leyland Line). (Admitted on application.)
Mr. H. E. DUKE, K.C., M.P., and MR. VAUGHAN WILLIAMS (instructed by Messrs. A. F. and R. W. Tweedie) appeared as Counsel on behalf of Sir Cosmo and Lady Duff Gordon. (Admitted on application.)
MR. F. LAING, K.C., and MR. ALFRED BUCKNILL appeared on behalf of Messrs. Harland and Wolff. (Admitted on application.)
Page 946
The Attorney-General: My Lord, when we adjourned on Monday I was dealing with the steps which have been taken by the Board of Trade, and more particularly with the question which your Lordship put to me about what had been done by the Board of Trade. In this Enquiry no evidence has been given, certainly not in detail, of what had happened since the 15th April, when the news came. I think I ought to tell your Lordship, particularly as we are very anxious that you should understand this, that the only reason why no Rules have been published, at least laid before the House of Commons, is that in consequence of the disaster and this Enquiry it was thought that this was a matter which they ought not to publish Rules upon until they had your Lordship's report, not only out of respect to the Court but also in the desire that any Rules that they might make should embody any recommendations which have been made by this Court, and that they should put any suggestions which they could adopt into the Rules. It was thought right, and I do venture respectfully to submit that that was the proper view for the Board of Trade to have taken, that they should take no steps until after the Report had been made. But in order to secure the safety of the public as far as possible, what was done was, the owners of the various lines were seen or communicated with, and as a result the owners of all passenger vessels of over 1,500 tons, not 15,000 tons, as unfortunately appears in the Shorthand Note twice - I make that correction because it is very necessary - but all over 1,500 tons, have agreed at an early date, in fact, almost immediately after the disaster happened, to put boats on their vessels sufficient to accommodate all those on board. I refer to that for this reason; it indicates to you that the Board of Trade did secure the best boat accommodation immediately the disaster happened. Whether ships will in future have to provide accommodation for all those they carry is a question which is still, I think, open to some discussion, and upon which I do not venture to say anything, except that we shall follow out any recommendation that comes either from your Lordship or from the Committee which is dealing with the question of life-saving appliances. That is how the matter stands. I was anxious your Lordship should understand it exactly, so that it might not be thought that the Board of Trade had done nothing since the 15th April, whatever may be said in criticism of them before.
I ought perhaps, also to tell your Lordship that an International Conference is proposed to deal with life-saving appliances at sea, including, of course, boat accommodation. So that we may get some Regulations which will apply to vessels of all countries. As your Lordship will appreciate, it is of the utmost importance, particularly where there is competition; and keen competition, that there shall be an agreement between the countries if possible.
The Commissioner: It is of the utmost importance that there should be an agreement between the different countries.
The Attorney-General: Yes, and that is what the Board of Trade is now striving to obtain.
I have been carefully through all the evidence, including the evidence that has been given in answer to a number of suggestions which were made during the course of the Enquiry, and of which I make no complaint - on the contrary, I am very glad that we had the opportunity of meeting any such suggestions - suggestions that were made that the Board of Trade had in some way failed to take proper precautions either with regard to bulkheads or the loadline point, which your Lordship will remember, and with regard to some other matters with which they are charged. What I want to say with regard to it is this. I am not going to deal with them in detail, because I think it must be apparent - I am sure it is to your Lordship - that, as the result of all the investigation, no such charge can be made and no such charge is made, as I understand it, against the Board of Trade in respect of any of those matters. What has been said and what has been argued before you is that they ought to have taken precautions to provide a larger boat accommodation before this disaster happened; and that is the point, of course, to which I directed my observations last Monday. The only reason why I am making these remarks is that I do not want to take up your time unnecessarily in going through evidence dealing with various suggestions made throughout the case, and which have really eventually come to nothing. Unless there is something in your Lordship's mind that you would like me to deal with, I do not propose to deal with them.
The Commissioner: I had better tell you my view at present about this matter.
The Attorney-General: If you please.
The Commissioner: I do not mean to bind my self, but I mention it in the presence of the gentlemen who appear, as it were, against the Board of Trade.
The Attorney-General: Yes.
The Commissioner: My own view, at present, is that the only complaint against the Board of Trade which has any substance is the complaint about the delay in altering the Rules of 1894 with reference to boats. I have not realised that there is any other complaint that the evidence really supports.
The Attorney-General: If I may respectfully say so, that is the view I have formed after reading the evidence and taking into account the suggestions that have been made. I would just like to make some observations in answer to the complaint that has been made, or to the criticism that has been directed, to the Board of Trade, for not having increased the scale; that is to say, for not having made a scale with a higher gradation for vessels of over 10,000 tons, which is the substance of the complaint, as your Lordship says. I dealt with that to some extent last Monday, but I would draw your attention to this. The Board of Trade from 1894 onwards during the years which elapsed, the 20 years up to 1911, had, so far as practical experience was able to guide them, no reason to doubt that the precautions that they were providing -
The Commissioner: That who were providing?
The Attorney-General: The precautions that the Board of Trade were providing under their Regulations, and that the scale which was in force under their Regulations were sufficient, because your Lordship will have appreciated this - take, for example, the last ten years from 1902 to 1911 - that during those ten years there had been over 6,000,000 passengers carried, and a large number of them, of course, carried in larger vessels than had existed at any rate before 1904. 1903-4 marks the stage at which vessels of much larger tonnage were constructed.
The Commissioner: When you say carried, are you confining your observations to the Atlantic trade?
The Attorney-General: Yes.
The Commissioner: I thought so, because there must have been an enormous number, a much larger number, carried over the surface of the globe.
The Attorney-General: Yes.
The Commissioner: To which these Rules apply.
The Attorney-General: I quite appreciate that.
The Commissioner: These Rules are not confined to the Atlantic?
The Attorney-General: No, but we have only the figures of the North Atlantic. The only figures we have are for the voyages on this route; that is why I am referring to them. They are very, very significant I submit. During those 10 years, of the 6,000,000 passengers carried, more than half of them (we do not exactly know the number or the proportion) were carried in vessels which belonged to the United Kingdom.
The Commissioner: What do you mean by that?
The Attorney-General: All the vessels that were carrying the passengers, of course, were not British vessels; the 6,000,000 includes all the passengers carried to and fro. Your Lordship asked the question as to whether it was possible to separate the number of passengers into those carried in British vessels and those carried in other vessels,
Page 947
but the figures are not available for doing that, and we have not been able to get them, and the result is we have to take it in this way, that over 6,000,000 passengers were carried during those ten years, that is the last ten years, and that more than half of them, and considerably more than half, were carried in British vessels. We do know the number of lives lost in British vessels, and that is nine during those ten years. That is the point I wanted to bring to your Lordship's attention.
That really means this, whether they were right or wrong in the view that they took, that it was much more important that they should have a construction of vessels - I think I am entitled to say the vessels themselves forming lifeboats - that it was much more important that they should have vessels constructed with efficient watertight compartments (although I agree they have no power to enforce it; I am going to call attention to that in a moment) than that they should have a larger provision of boats. Again, the view which they took, whether right or wrong - certainly the view that Sir Alfred Chalmers took, who was at the head for so many years - was that it was not possible to have a larger number of boats without interfering with the vessel, without hampering her decks, and without, at any rate, providing boats which he thought it would be very difficult to launch. Whether he was right or wrong in that, certainly the result is this, that very few lives were lost, and the importance of it is, that fewer lives were lost during that ten years than in the preceding ten years. In the preceding ten years, your Lordship will remember, the figures that were given corresponding to the figures that I gave just now, were three and a half millions, and during those ten years the total number of passengers lost was 73.
The Commissioner: Those figures are all set out in Sir Robert Finlay's speech.
The Attorney-General: Yes, they are taken from the evidence.
The Commissioner: He used them for the purpose of showing how negatively good the system of steaming ahead without taking into account the possibility of there being ice on the track had been.
The Attorney-General: And there is, of course, this observation to be made with regard to both arguments, with regard to the purpose for which he used them, and the purpose for which I am using them, that these arguments stand very well until you get a disaster of this character. Then, no doubt, you have got totally different considerations to apply, and the only use I am intending to make of it is not to say it is unnecessary to provide for their boat accommodation in the future, but I am putting it before you for your Lordship's consideration, as, at least, evidence which justified the Board of Trade, if it had been right in its opinion upon the material which it hitherto had had, in coming to the conclusion that further boat accommodation was not necessary in vessels of 10,000 tons. That is all I want to say about it.
The Commissioner: I think you are also entitled to say this, that they knew that, Rules or no Rules, these big liners were provided with boats far in excess of the requirements of their own Rules.
The Attorney-General: Yes. Wherever you are dealing with these big liners undoubtedly they did, as is shown from the Tables and considerably in excess. Undoubtedly these vessels did, trading as they were, and carrying as did the "Olympic," for example, a boat accommodation, which, I think I am right in saying was equivalent to 53 percent of the number of persons carried on the ship. She carried boat accommodation for 1,178 persons, and according to the Board of Trade Regulations she would have had to carry accommodation for 962, or 9,625 cubic feet, as against 11,325 cubic feet which she did carry.
There is this observation to be made, which I am sure is present to your Lordship's mind, that in fact the accommodation for 1,178 persons on this particular voyage in this disaster was not even used; I mean to say the full capacity of it, although available, was not used by those on board the "Titanic." All that you have is that 711 persons were saved out of the total number that could have been saved, according to the capacity of the boats and assuming that the last collapsible was launched, namely, 1,178.
I only use that for the purpose of showing this, that even with the comparatively large boat accommodation that there was of 53 percent of the persons carried, nothing like that number of persons were in fact saved; and that even if you had had a larger accommodation it is very doubtful (I do not want to put it too high) whether you would have saved any more persons. I mean by that, that according to the evidence which has been given in this case, it is said that you could not get women and children to step into the boats, a large number of women and children were still on the ship and were not saved. And supposing you had had double the number of boats, it is very doubtful whether you would have had any more persons saved. Again, I am not using that for the purpose of saying that you should not have boats in the future. I am only using it in order to see what the result would have been if more boats had been provided on the "Titanic," that is all, as applied to this particular disaster, and not as intending in any way to relieve shipowners from having to provide more boats in future.
Those are reflections which, I think, one is bound to make, because naturally if you have in mind that more boats might have been provided, either by the Board of Trade Regulations, or by the shipowners themselves, in view of suggestions that were made to them, one must see, as far as one can, what the effect would have been if they had been provided. I know the evidence is so present to your Lordship's mind upon this that I am not going to dwell in detail upon it.
One has further to bear in mind this, that on this particular occasion the weather was extraordinarily favourable for the launching of boats; you might never get such an occasion again. If an accident happens, and if there is a collision, it is almost more than one could possibly expect that you would have an absolutely calm sea such as you had on this night; no wind, and even no swell, and that you could lower boats from the height of the davits of 65 feet above the water level. You do require a vessel to be very steady, and you require very good weather to be able to do that.
The Commissioner: I thought the boat deck was about 90 feet above the water.
The Attorney-General: 95 feet from the keel, but 65 feet from the waterline. I think I am right in that.
The Commissioner: There is one matter that is quite beside the point, but I want to mention it now because my attention has been drawn to it, and you have just stated a point which makes it applicable at this time. You were talking about the women and children. I do not know whether, in providing lifebelts, any lifebelts are made specially for children, because I am told that the lifebelts which are made for adults are not really available for children. I only mention it; but if it is so, I think the attention of shipowners ought to be directed to it, so that it will be necessary that they should have some lifebelts on board which could be used by small children.
The Attorney-General: Yes, my Lord.
The Commissioner: I only mention it.
The Attorney-General: Again, I think one must remember the very considerable difficulty that there would be in a vessel in lowering boats from both sides. Certainly in a heavy sea you could only lower boats on one side, as we know; it would be useless to attempt to lower them on the weather side; you could not do that, you could only lower them on the lee-side. So that if you had the full boat accommodation, still the great probability is in the event of your requiring them you could only use the one side.
The Commissioner: And I suppose if the ship has a list.
Page 948
The Attorney-General: Yes, I was going to say in a list, again, you can only lower on the one side.
Then there is the further difficulty which has been much discussed in this case, of finding a place for them. It is not for me to express an opinion on that; it is a matter for your Lordship as to whether there was more room on the "Titanic," more space available for boats. All I will venture to say with regard to it is, that certainly, according to the evidence, it does seem that more boats could have been placed on the deck. I do not profess to be an expert upon it.
The Commissioner: More boats could have been placed there - there is no doubt about that - because they have placed them since on the "Olympic."
The Attorney-General: Yes, but, as I saw them placed - I do not know whether the same idea occurred to you when you saw them - they would have a very great difficulty in using all those boats on that deck if the occasion arose.
The Commissioner: And it may be the further provision of boats would be quite useless - very likely it would be - but I am sure of this, that at present you will not get the public to travel upon a boat that has not got what the public thinks is a sufficient supply of lifeboats.
The Attorney-General: No, and certainly, I think the result of the evidence which has been given in this case so far as I am able to form an opinion upon it - I put it forward with diffidence, having regard to the presence of those who are much more able to speak upon this matter with authority than I - is that it does seem that more boats could with safety have been carried, and placed under davits on the vessel.
The Commissioner: I have had sent to me an advertisement of a line of steamers which contains one line: "Lifeboats carried sufficient for all passengers and crew."
The Attorney-General: No doubt, for a time those advertisements may have some effect. As we know, eventually the public forgets all about them, and we get back to the old state of things, so that some Regulations have to be made.
There are, no doubt, many considerations of that character which must naturally affect the minds of those who have to determine whether or not there should be boat accommodation for all. I propose to leave that part of the subject now; I have dealt with it so far as it is material to this Enquiry, and it is useless, as it seems to me, to examine all the suggestions that have been made, and the objections to them, again.
The Commissioner: Fishing boats, I suppose, carry boats, but do they carry lifeboats?
The Attorney-General: Not lifeboats, but boats, I think.
The Commissioner: Not lifeboats?
The Attorney-General: No; boats. It is very difficult to say that boats should be carried for all persons on board, for instance, on excursion steamers. There are all those matters to be considered. Your Lordship will remember in the provisions as to boats there are a series of classes of vessels dealt with which gives you a very good idea of the difficulties that there necessarily must be in prescribing what is to happen with regard to all vessels. You first of all have got steamships carrying emigrant passengers. They come under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act so far as they go. In that connection you have also got the foreign-going steamships which have passenger certificates under the Act, which do not carry emigrants. That is a second class. Then you have steamships which have passenger certificates carrying passengers anywhere within the home trade limits, as defined, as your Lordship will remember, under the Merchant Shipping Act, between places in the United Kingdom and ports in Europe, between the River Elbe and Brest. Then you have foreign-going steamers which are not certified to carry passengers. Those are easily dealt with because they have ample accommodation there and your Lordship will remember so easy is it that in some of these vessels you have got the accommodation provided on each side sufficient to carry the whole of the passengers on board the vessel, which are the crew. But you can only do that, of course, when you are dealing with a foreign-going vessel which is not carrying passengers at all.
The Commissioner: I have forgotten what I have been told about Channel steamers going to Calais and Boulogne. Do they carry lifeboats sufficient to carry all the people?
The Attorney-General: No, they certainly do not. That is what I was thinking of at the moment.
The Commissioner: I came across at the end of March, I think it was; we were packed like pigs almost, I am sure there were not sufficient lifeboats then.
The Attorney-General: No.
The Commissioner: But I did not trouble my head about it.
The Attorney-General: I will not trouble you to go through it, but merely give an indication of the kind of provisions that would have to be made, necessarily for the different classes of vessels. In this case, and applying the test to this disaster; what happened on the "Titanic," the fact must always remain in the end that there was the strongest disinclination on the part of the majority of persons on board the "Titanic" to leave that great big ship for the very small boat into which they were asked to enter. Whether it is reasonable or not it is useless to enquire. It seems natural, and it is what happened in this case, and in all probability it is what would happen if, Heaven forbid, such a disaster happened again; people would be disinclined to leave the big vessel for the small boat in the water on a dark night.
The only further observation I want to make about it is that naturally, when you get to this stage of knowledge, when we know all that has happened, and more particularly when we know of the disaster which took place on this 15th of April, with the great loss of life that there was there, it sets the Board of Trade, like every other person, examining into the conditions with regard to vessels going to sea. And quite rightly. It showed what may happen, notwithstanding all the precautions you might take, notwithstanding that your vessel might be constructed according to the best knowledge and experience, and by one of the best builders in the world, and notwithstanding that no expense was spared. The vessel was built; as your Lordship will remember, at cost price, plus a commission; and so far as I followed the evidence there was no attempt on the part of the owners to save money, certainly no attempt by them to save money in the building of the ship which would involve in the slightest degree any omission to make a vessel either sufficiently strong, or to equip her properly for carrying passengers. And one understands why, apart from any other reason; in the competition that there is between these great liners, a vessel must be equipped according to the best results of modem science, and really taking advantage of everything that knowledge can give us at the present day, otherwise she cannot compete with the other liners. That is, no doubt, in one sense a great safety and security.
What does strike one in this matter, and what I am suggesting for your Lordship's consideration, if you think it right to put it forward as a recommendation, or as a subject which is well worthy of consideration, is that the Board of Trade might have greater powers with regard to inspection of bulkheads and requirements as to the watertight compartments and spacing and construction, and so forth. One thing is apparent from the investigation which we have made that they have practically no control. It is quite true that they have some with reference to the loadline. Your Lordship will remember what that is. It is comparatively slight, it seems to me. Although it is quite true that shipowners as a Rule, agree to conform to requirements that may be made, the Board of Trade has little power to interfere.
Mr. Laing: It can refuse a passenger certificate.
Page 949
The Attorney-General: What it has to do is to consider whether or not in the one case the vessel is satisfactory, that is to say, whether she is constructed satisfactorily, and they may take it into account, no doubt, the construction and division of watertight compartments. But what I mean is that it is quite possible, as it occurs to me, that greater powers might be given by Act of Parliament - they would have to be given by Act of Parliament - to the Board of Trade if, as a result of the Enquiry which is now about to take place, and which is taking place by the Committee which has been appointed since this disaster, the definite recommendations are made as to what is the best means, what is the safest means to be adopted for effective provision of watertight compartments; it occurs to me that they might have some power of enforcing them. But that depends very much upon the result of the Committee's report. All I am suggesting is that it is well worth considering - I should have to leave it there - I suggest it is well worthy of consideration whether they should not have greater powers in that respect. Suppose, for example, you got as the result of Enquiry and investigation a definite decision that a watertight deck at a certain level from the bottom would be of the greatest value; suppose you had such a finding from the Bulkheads Committee, that no doubt ought to be carried out and would have to be carried out by Act of Parliament. There would be no power as the law stands at present - that is certainly my view of the Board of Trade - to insist on that. Supposing the vessel is properly equipped as a passenger vessel I do not see that the Board of Trade would have the power to say, under the law as it stands at present, "This is the best means of construction that can be adopted; to have a watertight deck of this character, and you have not got it and, therefore, we will not give you a certificate."
The Commissioner: Knowledge is always increasing, and if you had statutory provisions of that kind it appears to me they might require alteration every twelve months, or every six months. For my own part I do not like statutory provisions hampering trade at all, and I should very much like to know whether in Germany, for instance, there are laws which compel ships to be constructed in this way, or in that way, or whether it is left to the discretion of qualified people who examine the ship.
The Attorney-General: Yes, I agree. That is one of the matters which no doubt would have to be considered by the Committee before it comes to a conclusion, what the course is that is adopted there and what actually are the requirements. I have two letters which we have received since the evidence was closed from the German companies which, if your Lordship thought right, could be put upon the Note; I have not troubled you with them because in view of what your Lordship's decision has been upon this question of bulkheads, it seemed unnecessary to go into detail with regard to what they do in Germany, how their vessels of the particular lines there are constructed. What I do propose to do with them is that those letters should be handed to the Committee which is going to enquire into this matter.
The Commissioner: That is the best thing to do. I do not want the Note encumbered with them.
The Attorney-General: No, my Lord; that is what I thought. But it is important that those who will have to deal with this should have it before them, and as we have acquired the information during the course of this investigation, I propose to have those letters sent to that Committee to consider. What I meant was not that you should have stereotyped in an Act of Parliament - a particular form of construction. I agree, if I may say so, that that would be most undesirable, because as you say, knowledge progresses week by week. I did not mean that at all. What I did mean was that it may be necessary that some further powers should be given as to requirements of the Board of Trade with reference to bulkheads and watertight compartments. I need not go into that, because the time has not come for dealing with that. It must depend upon the Report of the Committee.
I think the opinion which was formed by the Board of Trade after the receipt of this Committee's report of July, 1911, and after the investigations and the experiments which had been made for the purpose of enabling them to frame the draft Rules, is dealt with in the letter of the 16th April, the letter which was ordered on the 4th April, which sets out exactly what the Board of Trade's opinion was before the "Titanic" disaster. One may summarise it in this way, I think, that they had come to the conclusion that it was necessary to have a revision of the Tables, and they transmitted a copy of the memorandum and tables which they were proposing to adopt to the Committee, for the Committee's approval before they were published, and before they were laid on the table. That was the position.
The Commissioner: Was the Board of Trade put in motion by anything that took place in the House of Commons; I mean, put in motion in reference to the matters they dealt with in 1911?
The Attorney-General: Yes, certainly, a question was asked in February, 1911.
The Commissioner: It seems to me I have seen it somewhere.
The Attorney-General: It is quite right.
The Commissioner: In February, 1911, some question was asked in the House of Commons.
The Attorney-General: Yes.
The Commissioner: And, as the result of that question the four gentlemen were asked to report.
The Attorney-General: Yes. If you look at page 18 of the Memorandum you will see the circular which was issued which resulted in the report of the four officials.
The Commissioner: Apparently the Board of Trade did not move of its own initiative.
The Attorney-General: I do not think that is quite right. So far as I follow it, they had had the matter under consideration and were considering it at the time this question was put. What they say in this note of the 18th February, 1911, is this: "The Board have under consideration the question of amending the present requirements of the Statutory Rules." There was a question put in February, 1911, but there had been a question put in November, 1910, and that explains, no doubt, why it was they had had it under consideration before this Memorandum is sent out, of the 18th February.
The Commissioner: Is the question of November, 1910, mentioned in the Memorandum that you handed up to me?
The Attorney-General: I think not; no, it is not. The reference to the question is at page 5, and that only deals with the question of February, 1911. I will just read what was said there and then I will tell you what happened in November, 1910. On page 5 of the Memorandum it says: "In February, 1911, a question was asked in the House of Commons as to the desirability of revising the Regulations governing the number of lifeboats in passenger vessels, having regard to the increased tonnage of modern ships. The President of the Board of Trade replied that the question of the revision of the Rules was engaging the serious attention of the Board, and that he had decided to refer the matter to the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee for consideration and advice."
The Commissioner: Who was the President of the Board of Trade that time?
The Attorney-General: Mr. Buxton was the President in February, 1911. I can supply your Lordship with the questions and answers if you would like them.
The Commissioner: I do not want them. You were going to tell me now about November, 1910.
The Attorney-General: Yes. In November, 1910, the question was put by the same member.
The Commissioner: Who was he?
The Attorney-General: Mr. Bottomley, asking whether the President's attention had been called to the fact that the "Olympic" was provided with 14 lifeboats only, being less than a quarter of the
Page 950
number furnished by most other vessels of similar tonnage. That is what he says in the question.
The Commissioner: What is the answer?
The Attorney-General: The answer is - this may be the Under-Secretary: "I understand that the 'Olympic' will be provided with 14 lifeboats and two ordinary boats, of an aggregate capacity of 9,752 cubic feet, which is in excess of the requirements of the Statutory Rules."
The Commissioner: Is this Mr. Buxton?
The Attorney-General: No, Mr. Tennant, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade; he answered for the Board of Trade. "I have no information as to any vessel carrying four times this number of boats. The 'Lusitania' and the 'Mauretania' each carry 16 boats." And then the other question, if your Lordship would like the one in February, 1911, which followed upon it. It is this: "To ask the President whether he will state the date of last Regulations made by the Board of Trade in reference to the number of lifeboats necessary to be attached to passenger vessels, and whether, having regard to the increased tonnage of modern ships he will consider the desirableness of revising the Regulations." Mr. Buxton answered: "Those Regulations were last revised in 1894. The question of their further revision is engaging the serious attention of the Board of Trade, and I have decided to refer the matter to the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee for consideration and advice." That is how the matter stood.
Then came the circular of the 18th February, 1911, which, as I said, is at page 18 of the Memorandum, and that led to the four reports of which your Lordship no doubt has sufficient particulars. Substantially, what that came to was this; the view of the Board of Trade, and certainly of Sir Alfred Chalmers, up to that time, had been that it was not necessary. Sir Alfred Chalmers, who was the head of the Marine Department, had certainly taken that view very strongly.
The Commissioner: And does still.
The Attorney-General: And does still. Then, in November, 1910 undoubtedly attention was directed to it - the matter was then considered - and by February, 1911, the attention of the various gentlemen at the Board of Trade, the four gentlemen whose names have been mentioned whose reports you have, was directed to this, and they were asked to report, and the effect of their reports was to show that they thought (it is clear that all four thought) that some further boat accommodation should be required on these large vessels. They varied undoubtedly as to the extent.
The Commissioner: But if the suggestion of the man whose demands had been greatest had been listened to there would not, as I understand, have been boat accommodation on the "Titanic" as large as, in fact, was provided. Is that so?
The Attorney-General: No, I do not think that is right.
The Commissioner: I thought that was so.
The Attorney-General: No.
The Commissioner: Now will you tell me.
The Attorney-General: I will tell you exactly how it stands. I think it would be right to say that there would not have been sufficient boats for the number of persons on board the vessel.
The Commissioner: That is quite certain; but I want you to tell me this if you can. I think it was the man in Glasgow, was it not, who made the largest.
The Attorney-General: Mr. Harris - well, Mr. Archer -
The Commissioner: Yes, I am told Mr. Archer, the Principal Surveyor.
The Attorney-General: Yes, I think Mr. Archer puts forward the largest.
The Commissioner: Very well. What did Mr. Archer suggest for a ship of 45,000 tons, because it was all arranged according to tonnage, was it not?
The Attorney-General: Yes, your Lordship will find his scale at page 18. The effect of it for 45,000 to 50,000 tons is that there should be a minimum number of 24 boats to be placed under davits, with a cubic capacity of 14,250 feet, and with additional boats of 24,937 cubic feet.
The Commissioner: How much does that make altogether?
The Attorney-General: If you take the divisor at 10, as I think we have done throughout, that would give sufficient for all, because there were 2,201 on board the vessel. That is the exception that I should have made to what I said.
The Commissioner: What I had in my mind was this, I think, that it does not make provision for all who might by law be carried.
The Attorney-General: No, it does not. By law the number was 3,547.
The Commissioner: And what was the boat accommodation recommended?
The Attorney-General: The highest was 24,937 cubic feet. It would be 2,493, taking the divisor of 10.
The Commissioner: Yes, that is 2,493. Supposing the boat carried a full complement of passengers and crew she would be short of lifeboat accommodation to the extent of more than 1,000?
The Attorney-General: Yes; but I think also one must take into account what the other recommendations were. Mr. Archer went furthest.
Mr. Laing: Archer was going to dispense with the additional boats.
The Commissioner: Does he go further in the direction of watertight bulkheads, or something of that kind.
The Attorney-General: He is in favour of the exemption of the necessity for additional boats.
The Commissioner: Rule 12 do you mean?
The Attorney-General: Yes, but it goes further. It is on page 17 of the Memorandum: "If, however, the vessel be divided into efficient watertight compartments to the Board's satisfaction"-
The Commissioner: That is Rule 12.
The Attorney-General: Yes - "the total boat equipment would be (say) 36 boats of 21,313 cubic feet. I would suggest, however, that an alteration could usefully be made in No. 12 of the Rules in the direction of making a larger concession in the case of vessels which are efficiently subdivided. Owing, no doubt, to the very small reduction of life-saving appliances at present sanctioned by this Rule, none of the large vessels recently constructed have complied with the recommendations of the Bulkhead Committee."
The Commissioner: That comes to this, does it not, that he thinks you ought to cause shipowners to improve the watertight attributes of the vessel by bribing them with a promise that if they do, they need not provide so many lifeboats.
The Attorney-General: That seems to have been the view right away from 1891. May I finish what Mr. Archer says because it is important, having regard to the Table to which I called attention, he says; "It is suggested that in the case of vessels divided into efficient watertight compartments in accordance with the Committee's recommendations, the additional boats or life-rafts required by Division A. Class 1 (d), might be dispensed with altogether, provided the boat scale is maintained at about the values shown by the diagram. This would imply, in a vessel of 50,000 tons" - and therefore that is what we must take as what he would have required - "13 lifeboats, 7,750 cubic feet, 775 persons; 11 C. and 2 D. boats, 7,750 cubic feet, 968 persons; making a total of 15,500 cubic feet and 1,743 persons." He takes a different divisor there; no doubt he has got different boats. The substance of that is, and I think that is as far as we can take Mr. Archer's recommendation as applying to a vessel of the character of the "Titanic," that she should have had altogether 24 boats, that is 13 lifeboats and 11 other C. and D. boats with an accommodation for 1,743 persons. I am taking his smaller divisor for that - cubic capacity, 15,500; persons to be accommodated; 1,743.
The Commissioner: That would be very much less than the number she might carry.
The Attorney-General: Oh, yes, very much less.
The Commissioner: Of course one sees the logic of it. If you can get a boat so built that she
Page 951
cannot sink then you do not want any lifeboats at all.
The Attorney-General: No.
The Commissioner: But until you get that one can always conceive that there may be an occasion when lifeboats for all the people on board are required.
The Attorney-General: Yes. Might I add something to what your Lordship said, which is no doubt present to your Lordship's mind? Although you may not have boat accommodation for all the persons on board, if you have an efficient watertight provision on your vessel you can keep the vessel afloat much longer, even though you cannot save her altogether, and with wireless telegraphy which will put you into communication both with the shore and with other vessels, no doubt it was thought that with a sufficient number of boats to take the passengers off to the other vessels or to the shore and to come back again in case of need, they had done all that was necessary.
The Commissioner: That may be very reasonable.
The Attorney-General: That seems to have been the view.
The Commissioner: But at the same time there is no provision there for that possible, though very improbable, calamity, when no assistance comes to the ship.
The Attorney-General: Quite. Of course, dealing with these large vessels they must be in communication with a number of other vessels, because of the track along which they travel, which is after all just like a main road on land, and indeed when they get within a certain distance along the road they are in communication with the land as we know. They were in communication with Cape Race. That is considered more especially in the recommendation of the Committee in July, 1911, because in the recommendation which they made, they took into account the enormous development that there had been in modern science by the application of wireless telegraphy.
The Commissioner: Do you suppose, Mr. Attorney, if the "Titanic" had been provided with lifeboat accommodation for all the people on board that any more people would have been saved?
The Attorney-General: Well, my Lord, the result of the evidence, to my mind, is contrary to that. I was indicating it a little earlier.
The Commissioner: It is pointed out to me quite properly that the wireless installations are only really of service in a trade like the trade of the Atlantic, where there are many steamers within range, and the recommendations will probably apply to vessels all over the globe.
The Attorney-General: Yes; but it is quite right to say that they would only apply to vessels on that track? I agree what is meant is that no doubt it would be of much greater value - wireless telegraphy would be of much greater value in a track like that than it would be elsewhere.
The Commissioner: Take the voyage from the Cape of Good Hope, for instance, to Australia; a wireless installation would probably not be of great value there because the ships would be too far away to be of any use.
The Attorney-General: Of course it all depends.
The Commissioner: The ships that you summoned to your aid would be too far away to be of use.
The Attorney-General: That is no doubt always a factor to be taken into account. It is of the greatest value, of course, where you have vessels navigating along the same track to and fro, as you have here. It is of some value - I should have thought it must be of some value - to any vessel whatever the track it is following but not of such value.
The Commissioner: There is always hope that the message will reach some vessel which is within reasonable reach.
The Attorney-General: Or it may be even within reasonable reach of shore.
The Commissioner: Or reasonable reach of shore. It would not bring it within reasonable reach of shore, I suppose, from the Cape of Good Hope to Australia. If she had only been a few hours from the Cape of course it would.
The Attorney-General: As your Lordship says quite rightly that is one voyage, but you may take a number of others. In that particular one, of course, they would be a long way from land for a very long period.
Now, my Lord, if I may go back for a moment just before I say another word about what the Advisory Committee reported, the other gentlemen who reported on this matter gave lower figures.
The Commissioner: Yes, but I would rather take the higher figure.
The Attorney-General: Very well, the others are before you; we will leave it at that.
The Commissioner: Yes.
The Attorney-General: Then I will not bother about the other three, but I do think we must deal with the Advisory Committee's figures, because there you had the result, at any rate, of a very expert Committee. We have gone into it, and it is sufficient to give the figure. 8,300 cubic feet capacity would be the extent of the requirements for vessels of 45,000 tons and upwards according to that Committee's Report of July, 1911. All I wanted to say was that was the view of that Committee in July, 1911, an Advisory Committee constituted, as this Committee was, of representatives of all those who really had the means of bringing expert knowledge to bear upon the subject, and all of the different interests, also, in the shipping world. The result nevertheless, was that in July, 1911, the full extent of the boat accommodation required by that Committee in a vessel which was fitted with efficient watertight compartments was 8,300 cubic feet. So that in July, 1911, according to that Committee's requirement, the boat accommodation for the "Titanic" would have been less than under the Regulations which had hitherto existed. I will tell your Lordship why I say that.
The Commissioner: That is not quite accurate.
The Attorney-General: I will tell you why I say it. 8,300 feet compares with 5,500 feet in the Table of 1894.
The Commissioner: Well?
The Attorney-General: But under the Regulations for 1894 they would have had to find three-fourths additional unless they complied with Rule 12, which brought it up to the 9,625 feet. Under this scale, which was recommended by this Committee, if you had efficient watertight compartments it was not a question of being relieved of a portion only of the additional boat accommodation required, but you were to be relieved of it altogether. Under the old Rule you were only relieved of one-half of the additional boat accommodation; under this Report you were to be relieved of it all. So that under this Committee's Report, assuming that the "Titanic" was fitted with efficient watertight compartments, which I should have thought no one would doubt, having regard to the knowledge at that time, then all that she would have required to find would have been 8,300 cubic feet - boat accommodation for 8,300 feet, which would have given 830 persons.
The Commissioner: What I must have had in mind in what I said just now was that, under the Regulations of the Sub-Committee, which were adopted by the Advisory Committee, if the "Titanic" had been provided with lifeboat accommodation according to their recommendations, she would not have had as much lifeboat accommodation as she in fact had.
The Attorney-General: That is so.
The Commissioner: That is true, is it not?
The Attorney-General: That is true. That is upon the assumption which I made as I stated just now for this purpose, that she was fitted with efficient watertight compartments and applied for the exemption.
The Commissioner: Now, what is the definition of "efficient watertight compartments"? Is there any?
The Attorney-General: No, there is not.
Page 952
The Commissioner: It is left entirely to the Surveyor.
The Attorney-General: There is not a definition, and that is just what I meant by the observation I made just with reference to watertight compartments. That is left undoubtedly, at present absolutely, to the Surveyor. I said, and I think I am justified in saying, that having regard to the state of knowledge at that time no Surveyor would have said, the Board of Trade Surveyor or otherwise, that the watertight compartments of the "Titanic" were not an efficient provision.
The Commissioner: Then can you tell me why the White Star Line, the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company, did not apply under Rule 12?
The Attorney-General: Oh yes, for the simple reason that they meant to carry more boats than were required by the Board of Trade Rules, as, in fact, they did. They carried 11,325 cubic feet capacity as against 9,625, the maximum which could be required under the Board of Trade regulation. I have no doubt that what affected them was that it was desirable in order to attract persons to travel by their lines that they should carry more boats. I should imagine that that was the reason. Their's was a commercial enterprise, and they thought it was desirable to carry more, but when you have that Committee's Report before you, the latest document giving the latest results, the consequence would have been, as your Lordship said, that if that Report had been accepted in its entirety there would have been only accommodation for 830 persons.
The Commissioner: I suppose it is impossible to make a ship unsinkable, and, at the same time, for it to be of mercantile value.
The Attorney-General: I should certainly assume it, otherwise I am quite sure it would have been done.
The Commissioner: It would have been done.
The Attorney-General: Yes, because, if anybody could say now he could make an unsinkable ship nobody would want to travel in any other. But just see the difficulty of it.
The Commissioner: You could conceive of its being rivetted so that no water could possibly get into it, and when put into the sea and it will not sink, but it is not very much use as a cargo carrying ship.
The Attorney-General: And less as a passenger carrying ship.
The Commissioner: Well, I should think so.
The Attorney-General: You may say a vessel should have a double bottom Well, she has, up to a point. You may say, "Well, she shall have a double skin right through, an inner and an outer skin."
The Commissioner: It is even if she has a double bottom, I suppose?
The Attorney-General: Yes, but what is equally important is, that she may be penetrated above the double bottom.
The Commissioner: I suppose some people would say the double bottom ought to be carried up?
The Attorney-General: That is what I meant by saying an inner and an outer skin.
The Commissioner: A double bottom and a double top?
The Attorney-General: Yes, If this vessel had been holed in the double bottom, a totally different state of things would have happened. There you have every provision made for safety; but when she is holed above, once the side is penetrated and the water is pouring in, of course, you have only your watertight compartments to depend upon. And if she is holed in a sufficient number of compartments, as she was in this particular case, then it is impossible to keep your vessel afloat. I mean, that is the position. I suppose the true answer would be that a naval architect would have told you - again I speak with all diffidence - that you have done everything that could be desired if you have provided a vessel which will float with two adjoining compartments flooded and still have a freeboard from 2 1/2 to 3 feet - the top of her bulkhead still 2 1/2 to 3 feet above the waterline, with two adjoining compartments flooded. It is difficult, indeed, to say the extent to which modern science can go; taking two compartments, one fore and one aft, that is not sufficient, but if you have two compartments in a vessel which would stand penetration and flooding, I think it would be said that you have done everything that could be desired. But this vessel went further in her construction, because she was designed and constructed to float with two adjoining compartments flooded, and not only that, but, as your Lordship remembers, in this particular case, loaded as she was on this occasion she would have even floated with three adjoining compartments flooded. That was the view of Mr. Wilding, shown by him by the plans which he put in. But what, of course, nobody ever contemplated - that is the real explanation of the difficulty that happened here - no one ever contemplated that you would have that kind of disaster which could penetrate a vessel in five compartments, and assuming that she was holed in No 4, even six.
The Commissioner: In five or six?
The Attorney-General: Yes, I say six assuming she was penetrated in No. 4. I was leaving it out because, as I have said, I do not think the evidence quite establishes it, and therefore I do not want to put it too high. But assuming you have the vessel grievously wounded as this one was, penetrated through five compartments, then, of course, the difficulties are immensely multiplied, and I do not suppose anybody ever contemplated that would happen; and it never could have happened if it had not been for the fact that this vessel was going at 22 knots, which is such an important factor in it, and that she came across this submerged part of a berg which seems to have somehow had a number of projections which caused this damage.
Mr. Laing: It was six or seven compartments.
The Attorney-General: I know, if you take Nos. 1, 2 and 3 holds; but you cannot call them compartments quite. If you take it as it is in the forepeak and in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd holds and also in No. 6, which is the foremost boiler section, and No. 5 boiler section, there is no doubt of the holing. If you treat those as separate compartments, it would make six, without taking into account No. 4. With No. 4 it would make seven. But your Lordship knows how that stands. The importance of it in my mind, according to the submission I am making to you, is that this particular damage that was done to this vessel, as we know it, was of a kind which nobody had ever contemplated as possible. That, I submit, is the true explanation.
The Commissioner: Can you tell me this; has an unsinkable ship ever been constructed?
The Attorney-General: Not that we know. I do not know of any. These vessels which have been referred to, and vessels of that kind, like the "Mauretania" and "Lusitania," were thought to be unsinkable in a comparative sense. You cannot put it any higher than that. It does not mean that it was impossible to sink them. What it did mean was that so far as one knew they never would be sunk because they were so constructed that they would float under conditions which it was thought comprised every possible danger that might happen to them. That, I think, was the view held right up to the disaster to the "Titanic."
The Commissioner: There are a great many gentlemen who imagine that they can construct ships which would be unsinkable, and I have received endless notices of valuable patents for that purpose.
The Attorney-General: I know. One gentleman is very anxious that I should interest myself in a scheme under some patent of his which would save every person within five minutes of a disaster happening of whatever form or kind, and he is quite ready to expound it.
The Commissioner: And give him a fortune?
The Attorney-General: Oh, yes, my Lord, which he is anxious to share with me, provided that I supply the capital.
Now, my Lord, I think that exhausts what I want to say to your Lordship about the boat accommodation and the criticism that has been
Page 953
directed to that. All I am anxious is that your Lordship should have present to your Lordship's mind, as you have, all the considerations which may be urged pro and con when dealing with the criticisms and comments which have been made in reference to the Board of Trade.
Now I propose to deal with the last question, and that is, as to the "Californian." I want to preface any observations I am going to make -
The Commissioner: You must tell me what my position is with regard to the "Californian."
The Attorney-General: Yes, my Lord. First of all the view which I take of it is that so far from being desirous of bringing home to the Captain of the "Californian," or to any of the officers of the "Californian," that they saw distress signals and that they took no step after they had seen them, I am most anxious, and have been throughout, to find some possible excuse, for the inaction on the part of the "Californian." It is not a case of desiring to bring home to them that they did not do their duty; our anxiety and your Lordship's anxiety would be, if possible, to find some reason to explain the failure by them to take any steps when they had seen distress signals. I can only say that to me it is a matter of extreme regret that I have come to the conclusion that the submission I must make to you, is that there is no excuse. Whether I am right or wrong in that is, of course, for your Lordship's consideration.
Now the position of matters in this Enquiry is this. Attention was called at an early stage of the Enquiry to the fact that the "Californian" had seen the distress signals and had taken no steps in consequence, and further the allegation was undoubtedly made that the ship that she saw was the "Titanic." Upon that my friend, Mr. Dunlop, appeared when Captain Lord of the "Californian" was called. One must bear in mind also that this was not a new suggestion; that it was made first in America; and that it was enquired into in America. I am not, of course, going to refer to the details of what took place there. The only reason I am calling attention to it is that they knew perfectly well what the complaint was with regard to the " Californian." And no doubt that is the reason why my friend was instructed to appear, and did appear, as he stated at first, both for the owners and the Master of the vessel. I pointed out at once that in the view which I took of this matter the owners were not affected at all. No one suggested that the owners were responsible for this. This was a matter which affected the Master and, it might be, the officers of the vessel. I notice it is on page 156 that Mr. Dunlop first appeared in the matter, when he asked for leave to appear, when he said he was appearing for the owners. He said: "Will your Lordship allow me to appear on behalf of the Leyland Line - the owners, Master and officers from the 'Californian,' who are to be examined today?" That was my friends application before they were examined. So that he knew quite well what the point was of calling them. Then I stated what the questions were that would be discussed. Then later on your Lordship says to Mr. Dunlop: "In the meantime, what you can do is to watch, and, if you find any attack is made upon your clients, then you can ask me to allow them to go into the box," I said, "It cannot affect the owners, I think; it may affect the Master if the story were true." Your Lordship will remember the position we were in at that moment. All that we knew about it was that the donkeyman Gill had made a statement on affidavit, and that that had been reported in the public press, and that the Master of the vessel had been examined in America, of which we also had some report in the newspapers. But that is how it stood. Whether the story was true or not we did not know. Then I said: "It cannot affect the owners, I think; it may affect the Master if the story were true." Then your Lordship says: "I understand this gentleman was applying on behalf of the owners and the Master," and my friend, Mr. Dunlop, says: "Yes." Then I say: "I do not see how it can affect the owners." There the matter rested. Then Captain Lord is examined and my friend Mr. Dunlop examined him, and some question was raised about it at page 170 only because I pointed out that he was leading Captain Lord. I thought, and I am going to say when I examine his evidence, that he was an unsatisfactory witness, and Mr. Dunlop was putting leading questions to him on the most vital points in the case. If you look at the top of page 170, I say: "I quite understand that he is here for the protection of the Master, and I am raising no objection to that, but in all the circumstances I think it would be better to let him tell a little of the story." That was the discussion. Then your Lordship says you did not think any harm had been done at that time, and later on your Lordship pointed out at Question 7834: "You are falling into the error that the Attorney-General warned you not to fall into. You are putting the words into the man's mouth. You might as well hand your proof to him and tell him to read it out." That makes it quite plain that my friend appeared, and appeared from the first moment, for the Master.
May I just call your Lordship's attention to the Rules. My submission with regard to it is that by appearing he becomes a party. I am not asking your Lordship in any way to deal with this matter, except to state the conclusion of fact to which you arrive.
The Commissioner: Have I any jurisdiction to do more?
The Attorney-General: I think not. If your Lordship will remember, you put this question to me at an early stage of the "Californian" Enquiry, and the view I took then was the view I take now, and that I submit to you that all we are asking your Lordship to deal with is the conflict of fact that arises upon the evidence, and nothing more. I am dealing only with the evidence of the "Californian" for this purpose. There is a conflict between the various witnesses called from the "Californian." The facts alleged on the one hand are these, that the "Californian" saw distress signals. As to that there is no conflict. To be quite accurate with regard to it I think one might say that the Captain does not admit that they were distress signals, but he admits that they might have been. That is the exact position. I will show that by reference to one question. Further, that those distress signals came from a vessel in the direction in which the "Titanic" was. That there is no dispute about. The further point is that, having seen the distress signals, the "Californian" took no steps, except to attempt to do Morse signaling with a light. I think that is the position. The comment I make upon it is that for the Master of a British vessel to see distress signals, whether they came from a passenger steamer or not, and whether from a passenger steamer of the size of the "Titanic" or not, is a very serious matter, and because it is a serious matter we have enquired into it very carefully during the course of this investigation; but, having regard to the Enquiry, I think all that your Lordship is asked to do, certainly all that I am asking you to do, is to give the view of the facts which you have formed after hearing all the evidence. I mean by that that suppose your Lordship came to the conclusion that we were right in saying that she did see distress signals and that they were the signals of a passenger steamer of the "Titanic,' and took no steps, that is a finding of fact which I should ask your Lordship to give in the Report which you may make. I do not ask you to do anything more. In point of fact Captain Lord is not summoned before you to answer some attack upon his certificate. That is not the position of matters. What has happened here is that in the course of the Enquiry facts which are relevant to this Enquiry have been brought before your Lordship, that there is a conflict of evidence as to these facts, that on one view of the facts they have a bearing undoubtedly upon the conduct of one or more persons upon the "Californian," but they also are relevant to the Enquiry, and if they are relevant to the Enquiry the fact that your Lordship may in arriving
Page 954
at your conclusion find a state of things to have existed which reflects upon some person who is not actually on trial and cited to appear before you as on trial, is no reason, I submit, why your Lordship should not express your opinion on the facts.
The Commissioner: Finding the facts and expressing an opinion upon them are two different things.
The Attorney-General: I agree; that is why I said expressing your opinion upon the facts and ask you to say on the somewhat conflicting evidence which is the correct one.
The Commissioner: Let me put it quite plainly: If Captain Lord saw these distress signals and neglected a reasonable opportunity, which he had of going to the relief of the vessel in distress, it may very well be that he is guilty of a misdemeanor. That is so, is it not?
The Attorney-General: Yes, under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906.
The Commissioner: Am I to try that question.
The Attorney-General: Certainly not.
The Commissioner: I think not.
The Attorney-General: Certainly not, my Lord. I never asked and could not ask your Lordship to try that question, but, nevertheless, the facts, which you are asked to find, whether they reflect upon him or not, are material to the Enquiry.
The Commissioner: The facts I can find, but I do not want, unless I am obliged to do it, to find a man guilty of a crime.
The Attorney-General: No, my Lord.
The Commissioner: I do not think I have tried him for any such purpose.
The Attorney-General: I agree.
The Commissioner: And, moreover, as you know perfectly well, he might, if he had had any idea that he was going to be tried for a crime, have said when he was in the witness-box: "I refuse to answer these questions because they may incriminate me."
The Attorney-General: Yes.
The Commissioner: But he did not do that, you know.
The Attorney-General: Different considerations apply, I think, when you are determining whether a crime has been committed, and your Lordship would have to go into questions which certainly, it appears to me, it is unnecessary to find in this case, and which I am not asking you to find in order to determine whether a crime was committed. I will give an indication of what I mean. Supposing he came to a mistaken conclusion with regard to what he saw, clearly there is no crime. Supposing he was careless in coming to that conclusion, there is no crime; but, nevertheless, if you were sitting on another tribunal dealing with the matter from other points of view, you might say, "Well, he ought to have come to the conclusion that these were distress signals from a passenger steamer, and he ought to have gone to the rescue of that vessel." Suppose he, the Captain of the "Californian," thought that these rockets were distress signals, and that they came from a vessel in distress, apart altogether from whether she was a passenger steamer or not, then you have to consider whether he has any excuse for not going to the assistance of this vessel. Of course there are a number of considerations which you would have to take into account then: Whether he thought he could safely reach her; whether he thought he was running a risk; whether, owing to the fact that he was among ice, and, apparently, according to his evidence, for the first time, that may have formed some explanation of why he did not at once proceed to the assistance of this vessel. All those are questions which no doubt would be very relevant indeed when you are considering whether or a not a misdemeanor has been committed. I am not going to ask you to find that at all. What I am asking you to find is the fact that they did see on the "Californian" distress signals and that were distress signals from the "Titanic," and that the distance of the "Titanic" from the "Californian" was only a few miles.
The Commissioner: How many?
The Attorney-General: I should put it at something like seven or eight. It is very difficult to say. I do not profess to be able to say with precision.
The Commissioner: That is a very difficult question on the evidence.
The Attorney-General: I agree it is very difficult to say. I think it was put by him in America and also here at 19 1/2 miles; and then by a later explanation he says he had to steam just on 30 miles to get there.
The Commissioner: Because he could not go the direct way.
The Attorney-General: Yes, that is as far as I ask the Court to go. It is as far as it is necessary to go for the questions I am putting to you. For one thing, I should be very sorry to do an injustice to Captain Lord, and I am very anxious that in any event nothing should be said as a conclusion by your Lordship which would suggest that he had committed a misdemeanor. Of course, as your Lordship says, no such question is put to you and no such question is made by me. But still we must get to some conclusion upon this state of the evidence.
The Commissioner: You formulated a question for me to answer?
The Attorney-General: Yes, purposely.
The Commissioner: And I must answer it somehow; at least, I think I must.
The Attorney-General: It is the question in Question 24: How it was that assistance did not reach the "Titanic" before the "Carpathia" arrived? The "Californian" is the vessel.
The Commissioner: It is the only vessel as is pointed out.
The Attorney-General: Yes, I framed the question purposely so as to get an answer upon this evidence.
The Commissioner: I think you have explained to me sufficiently how you think I ought to deal with this.
The Attorney-General: If your Lordship pleases.
The Commissioner: Unless you wish to say anything more; I am not stopping you on the evidence you know.
The Attorney-General: No. I am very anxious not to press it too far. At the same time I am very anxious that after the evidence we have had, such conclusions as are relevant to this Enquiry should be given by your Lordship when you have considered the evidence.
Now, the evidence, which in voluminous, is undoubtedly to some extent very conflicting on some points. I am not sure that it is possible to reconcile some of these statements that are made, from whatever aspect you look at them. But upon the material points, I submit there is not any real difficulty. The material points are first of all whether the "Californian" saw distress signals. One answer of the Captain it seems to me quite disposes of that.
The Commissioner: Captain Lord?
The Attorney-General: Yes, my Lord.
The Commissioner: I do not know whether it will relieve you at all in the trouble you are taking, but I think we are all of opinion that the distress rockets that were seen from the "Californian" were the distress signals of the "Titanic."
The Attorney-General: That relieves me of a great deal of evidence, my Lord. That is the material fact of this case. Your Lordship will remember the evidence that was given by Gibson, the Apprentice, with reference to his going to the chart room and the Captain's explanation of that. My submission, in considering this evidence, is that one must come to the conclusion that Captain Lord's evidence, as given in this Court, was unsatisfactory upon this very vital point of what happened after he had once seen that there was a vessel there. He was himself stopped in the ice because of the danger of proceeding, so that he had well present to his mind the possibility of another vessel being in jeopardy, in all likelihood, by proceeding through the ice; yet he not only goes to his chart room, but remains in the chart room after he has had notice that at least one distress signal had been sent up. His view about that at first - I doubt whether it is persisted in throughout his evidence or whether he intended to make an impression
Page 955
that he persisted in it - was that he expected the boy to come down, because he had told Mr. Groves, who was the Third Officer, to send the boy down to him as soon as there was any change or as soon as there was anything to report. And the boy does come to the chart room. The Captain's explanation of it is rather difficult to get by piecing question and answer together because it travels over so much ground, but the explanation of it, giving it quite fairly to him, is that he remembered the door opening and the boy opening it. He said, "What is that?" and the boy closed the door and went away without saying anything further. That was his explanation of it. On the other hand, the boy's statement is very definite and very specific as to what had happened. But, my Lord, before the boy goes to the chart room, according to the evidence at a quarter-past one (but I shall submit it must have been somewhere about a quarter to one) notice is given to him by the officer on deck, through a speaking tube which existed, into the chart room that a white rocket had been seen. That is Question 6790, page 158. This is the Captain's admission. 6790 is the crucial question upon this point, but he is asked just a little before that, at Question 6785, "Did you speak to him through the speaking tube? - (A.) At 20 minutes to one." Your Lordship will remember he had said he remained on deck till a quarter-past 12, when he went into the chart room. Question 6786 is, "Did he say whether she had changed her position? - (A.) I asked him if the steamer was the same. He said it was the same; he had called her up once, but she would not reply to him." So that he is trying to get into communication with her and had failed. "(Q.) Then you went to lie down in the chart room? - (A.) Yes; I told him I was going to lie down in the chart room then. (Q.) A little later did he whistle down the tube and tell you she was altering her bearings? - (A.) A quarter-past one. (Q.) Did he say how she was altering her bearings? - (A.) Towards the S. W. (Q.) Did he tell you whether he had seen any signal? - (A.) He said he saw a white rocket. (Q.) From her? - (A.) From her." An attempt has been made - it is not really more - to explain that he did not understand what that white rocket meant, but my submission is that it completely breaks down. The suggestion at first was that it was a Company's signal. He admitted quite plainly that he knew it was not a Company's signal, or, at any rate, received no satisfactory explanation that it was a Company's signal.
Will your Lordship look at page 161, Question 6898; "(A.) I heard of one rocket. I did not see it fired. (Q.) You heard of one? - (A.) Yes.(Q.) That was before you went to the chart room? - (A.) No, at a quarter-past one." Then, at Question 6902: "(Q.) Did you remain in the chart room when you were told that a vessel was firing a rocket? - (A.) I remained in the chart room when he told me this vessel had fired a rocket. (Q.) I do not understand you. You knew, of course, that there was danger in this field of ice to steamers? - (A.) To a steamer steaming, yes. (Q.) You knew there was danger? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) That is why you stopped? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) And you knew also that it was desirable, at any rate, to communicate with the 'Titanic' to tell her that there was ice? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) You had done that? - (A.) I had done that. (Q.) And you knew that this vessel, whatever it was, that you saw, had stopped? - (A.) Had stopped, yes. (Q.) I do not understand - it may be my fault? - (A.) Shall I explain to you? (Q.) What did you think this vessel was firing rockets for? - (A.) I asked the Second Officer. I said, 'Is that a Company's signal?' and he said he did not know. (Q.) Then that did not satisfy you? - (A.) No, it did not. (Q.) I mean whatever it was it did not satisfy you that it was a Company's signal? - (A.) It did not, but I had no reason to think it was anything else."
The Commissioner: That is a curious condition of mind.
The Attorney-General: Very. And if your Lordship looks at the question just opposite to that, after a series of questions we get eventually to Question 6943. "(Q.) Very well, that did not satisfy you? - (A.) It did not satisfy me. (Q.) Then if it was not that, it might have been a distress signal? - (A.) It might have been. (Q.) And you remained in the chart room? - (A.) I remained in the chart room."
Now, my Lord, that establishes quite clearly this, that he thought it might have been, and the moment a man thinks it might have been a distress signal and does not know what else it could be, I should have thought it really means that he knew - I will not say he was quite certain - but he knew at any rate this, that there was a serious possibility of some vessel being in urgent need of assistance close by. It is very difficult to understand. I find it very difficult to understand in reading through all this evidence why it was that in those circumstances he remained in the chart room and took no step. Your Lordship will see what he does. He says he remained there expecting Gibson, the Apprentice, to come down and report. I want to make this comment upon that evidence. It is very unfortunate, to say the least of it, that there is no entry made in the log of these distress signals. The shifting of time, according to the evidence that is given, has some bearing upon it. It is said, for example, in this case that this white rocket, the first distress signal, was not seen till a quarter-past one. It is very difficult to explain that, in view of the evidence of the "Titanic," which is that they were sending up these rockets from 12.45. I should have thought upon this evidence and upon the evidence which follows it, that the estimate of time must be quite wrong.
The Commissioner: There might be some difference in the clocks of the two vessels.
The Attorney-General: Yes, certainly, there might be.
The Commissioner: That might partly account for it.
The Attorney-General: Yes, it might; but having regard to the news they got in the early morning of the loss of the "Titanic," I cannot help thinking it is very striking that you find no entry of any sort or description of the distress signals which had undoubtedly been seen during that night, and to the number of eight. According to the Apprentice Gibson it is about 2 o'clock that he goes down into the chart room. That is the time which he gives. That is at Question 7277. The Master speaks of it, and says he came down at about 2 o'clock, and he gave that extraordinary account of what had happened. Your Lordship will remember the boy's account was a very different one. The boy's account was a very important one.
It is put, I think, at page 168 in further examination by me of the Captain, Question 7280: "Did not the boy deliver the message to you, and did not you enquire whether they were all white rockets? - (A.) I do not know; I was asleep." The first reference to the boy in that is at Question 7278: "(7281.) (Q.) I think this is a very important matter. - (A.) It is a very important matter. I recognise that. (Q.) It is much better to tell us what happened, Captain. - (A.) He came to the door, I understand. I have spoken to him very closely since. He said: I opened my eyes and said, 'What is it?' and he gave the message; and I said, 'What time is it?' and he told me; and then I think he said I asked him whether there were any colours in the light. (Q.) That is what the boy has said to you. You have questioned him a good many times since? - (A.) Yes, I have questioned him since. (Q.) Is he still an Apprentice on your ship? - (A.) He is. (The Commissioner.) Is he telling the truth? - (A.) Is the boy telling the truth? (Q.) Yes? - (A.) I do not know. I do not doubt it for a moment. (The Attorney-General.) Just think. You say you do not doubt it for a moment. Do you see what that means. That means that the boy did go to the chart room to you. He did tell you about the rockets from the ship, and you asked whether they were white rockets, and told him that he was to report if anything further occurred? - (A.) So he said. That is what he said. (Q.) Have you any reason to doubt that is true? - (A.) No; I was asleep."
Page 956
Then if you turn to what the boy says about this it is at page 173, Question 7552: "(Q.) What were the orders which the Second Officer gave you when she disappeared? - (A.) Call the Captain and tell him that that ship has disappeared in the South-West, that we are heading West-South-West and that she has fired altogether eight rockets. (Q.) Did you report that to the Captain? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Where did you go to? - (A.) Into the chart room. (Q.) Was the chart room door shut? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Did you open the door and go in? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Did you find the Captain there? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Did you speak to him? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Did you give him the report you were ordered to give him? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) What did the Captain say? - (A.) He asked me were they all white. (Q.) The rockets? - (A.) Yes, were there any colours in the rockets at all? (Q.) What did you tell him? - (A.) I told him that they were all white. (Q.) Did he give any instructions? - (A.) No. (Q.) Did he say anything further? - (A.) He asked me the time. (Q.) What was the time? - (A.) Five minutes past two by the wheelhouse clock. (Q.) You told him that, did you? - (A.) Yes." Then he said the Captain was awake, and then he explains that he had up to that time seen five more rockets. Having done that he goes back and reports to the officer. He says at Question 7572 that he had reported what he was told to do.
The Commissioner: I do not understand this boy's evidence - that he saw three rockets at twenty minutes to four.
The Attorney-General: It may be one of two things. It might be that they were some of the signals which were sent up from the boats, but if they were rockets it may be they were the 'Carpathia's."
The Commissioner: She sent up rockets?
The Attorney-General: Yes.
The Commissioner: That is quite possible.
The Attorney-General: Of course, he does not see those until about twenty to four.
The Commissioner: "I cannot say at twenty minutes to four, but it was about that time." However, you can pass it by; it does not affect my mind.
The Attorney-General: Again, it is a little difficult to tell what time exactly that boy saw those rockets. He saw some after the eight rockets which had been sent up by the "Titanic." The difficulty is to reconcile that evidence with the Captain's.
The Commissioner: I asked the boy, was the Captain awake, and he said, "Yes."
The Attorney-General: Yes, certainly, your Lordship did.
The Commissioner: The Captain's excuse for not hearing or understanding what the boy said to him is that he was asleep.
The Attorney-General: Yes. Well, my Lord, I must say that with the greatest desire to accept that evidence, if possible, I find it impossible. He cannot have been asleep in view of what he was expecting. He had had the report; he was waiting to know whether they had managed to call up this vessel or not. He had had the report according to his own view half an hour before, that they had not yet managed to get into communication this vessel; they were trying to; and he says, "Let me know later." Then he is in his chart room waiting for this boy, the boy comes down and all this takes place; and it is very difficult to imagine that the Captain has forgotten all about this incident, or that it did not take place. I will not say more about it than that, but I do submit that the true view of the evidence is that what the boy Gibson is stating is correct; and if you take that view it means this -
The Commissioner: He struck me as a perfectly honest witness, and the Captain himself, when he is asked if he thinks the boy is speaking the truth, says he does.
The Attorney-General: Yes, and may I add one further factor for your Lordship's consideration. That boy when he was called was certainly very reluctant to say anything which he thought would tell against his Captain.
The Commissioner: Certainly.
The Attorney-General: I mean he was not anxious to make a case against him - quite the reverse, and I think the same observations would apply to Mr. Groves, the Third Officer, who also gives very pertinent evidence. But when you have got as far as that, I submit it is really as far as one need go in this case. The important fact is this, having regard to what your Lordship has said you are satisfied about; it means this, that that establishes that the signals were sent, that they were seen by the "Californian," that they came from the "Titanic," that the Captain knew that these signals had been sent up, and that the Captain remained in the chart room and did nothing. Those are the facts which are relevant for the purpose of this Enquiry. If he had taken another course, and if he had done what one would have expected him to do, he would have immediately steamed to the assistance of this vessel in distress. I do not profess to say - I doubt very much whether anyone can say - exactly the distance which the "Titanic" was from the "Californian" at the time of sending up the rockets. But according to the testimony (and this is not unimportant) of all those on the "Titanic" who saw the lights, the vessel they saw was, according to them, at a distance of something like five or six miles.
The Commissioner: Who were the witnesses on the "Titanic" who saw the Morse light?
The Attorney-General: My Lord, I think it is only Boxhall.
The Commissioner: At page 158, Question 6761, Captain Lord says this with reference to the green light that he saw and the distance. He is asked: "What distance do you think she was from you when you could see the lights? - (A.) About five miles."
The Attorney-General: That is about what is said by the "Titanic" witnesses.
The Commissioner: And that agrees with the "Titanic" witnesses.
The Attorney-General: Yes. There are a number of witnesses who speak to that light on the "Titanic." I agree that there is some discrepancy between the witnesses as to exactly how the light bore with regard to them. There are two factors to bear in mind in that connection which, I think, are essential to bear in mind, in order to understand the evidence. The one is that the "Californian" was swinging during the whole of this time. It explains what otherwise might be inexplicable - that is, why at first the green light is seen and then subsequently the red light. It explains it, I was going to say, for this reason -
The Commissioner: Seen by the "Californian"?
The Attorney-General: Yes. The "Californian" first of all sees the green light, the "Californian" is then heading about E. N. E.; it is after she stopped. The "Titanic" is proceeding to the Westward, and at this time the "Titanic" would expose her green light to a vessel which is heading E. N. E. The "Titanic" would be exposing a green light quite clearly.
The Commissioner: At what time?
The Attorney-General: I am speaking of the time now when the light was first seen.
The Commissioner: When was that?
The Attorney-General: The "Californian" stops at 10.20 and she shows the light. The Captain sees the light before he goes below into the chart room. It is between 11 and 11.30, he puts it. He says 11, and then in another question he says, it might have been a little later. But, in any event he sees the vessel coming towards him, and, heading as he was, the "Titanic" would be approaching him in the course she was taking, and heading, as he was in the "Californian," he would see her starboard
Page 957
light. That is what he does see. He said at the question before that, which your Lordship referred to just now; where he said she was then about five miles off. "I saw it some time between 11 and half-past; I do not know exactly. (Q.) What distance do you think she was from you when you could see the lights? - (A.) About five miles. (Q.) As much as that? - (A.) About that, I should think."
Then after that the "Titanic," when she comes into collision with the iceberg, also swings. The evidence about that is the evidence of Rowe, at page 419, Question 17658. He gives the same evidence. First of all he saw a light four or five miles off, and then he asked, at Question 17667, "When you saw this light did you notice whether the head of the 'Titanic' was altering either to port or to starboard? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) You did notice? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Was your vessel's head swinging at the time you saw this light of this other vessel? - (A.) I put it down that her stern was swinging. (Q.) Which way was her stern swinging? - (A.) Practically dead South I believe then. (Q.) Do you mean her head was facing South? - (A.) No, her head was facing North. She was coming round to starboard. (Q.) The stern was swung to the South? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) And at that time you saw this white light? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) How was it bearing from you? - (A.) When I first saw it it was half a point on the port bow, and roughly about two points when I left the bridge."
The Commissioner: What Question is that?
The Attorney-General: That is 17667 to 17674. If your Lordship will look now at Gibson's evidence at page 172 you will find the evidence of the "Californian" swinging, Question 7470. "Can you tell us whether your ship during that hour had been heading the same way, or whether she had shifted her position? - (A.) The ship was swinging round. (Q.) Your ship was? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Of course, if your ship was swinging round, even though the other ship was stationary, after a bit her lights would bear differently from you? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) When you say it was 2 1/2 points upon the starboard beam, do you mean forward of the starboard beam? - (A.) Before the beam. (Q.) Five and a half from the bows? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) You say that the 'Californian'. was swinging. Can you tell me, do you know, which way she was swinging? - (A.) She was swinging towards the nor'ard." Then came the statement as to what he saw after that. If you look at page 186, Question 8150, you will find what Mr. Groves, the Third Officer, says about that. This is after he had seen the two masthead lights, your Lordship will recollect. "How were you heading? - (A.) At that time we would be heading N. E. when I saw that steamer first, but we were swinging all the time because when we stopped the order was given for the helm to be put hard a-port, and we were swinging, but very, very slowly." He deals with this again at page 188. I will begin at Question 8239 so as to make it intelligible. "(Q.) It was after you had seen those white lights disappear that you had a conversation with him in which he said to you, 'the only passenger steamer is the "Titanic'"? - (A.) That is so. (Mr. Rowlatt.) Did you have any further conversation with the Captain? - (A.) I did not. (Q.) Did he stay on the bridge or go down again? - (A.) I do not think he would have been up there for more than three minutes at the outside with me. (Q.) Then he went down again? - (A.) He did. (Q.) Did you stop on the bridge? - (A.) I stopped on the bridge. (Q.) Did you continue to observe the steamer? - (A.) After I had tried ineffectually to Morse her I did not pay any particular attention to her. (Q.) Did you not notice her, or did you notice her? - (A.) Oh! I noticed her, certainly. (Q.) Was she keeping her same position? - (A.) The same position, yes. We were swinging slowly to port, very slowly." That is a mistake, as the Admiral points out. It is corrected later. "(Q.) Did you not take her bearing by the compass? - (A.) Not that steamer's bearing, no. (Q.) She would appear to be coming round more towards your stern? - (A.) No, she would appear, as we were swinging, to be working towards our head. (Q.) I thought you were swinging to port? - (A.) No, we were swinging to starboard that is, to the right hand." It is worth taking a note also of the evidence of Mr. Stone at page 182, Question 8061: "We were heading E. N. E., at the beginning of the watch, and slowly turned round to W. S. W. When I lost sight of this steamer we would be heading then about W. S. W., and she would be about two points on our port bow. I saw then her stern light, not her red light. She shut in her red light. (Q.) You must have seen her green light if it was showing, before she shut in her stern light? - (A.) If she shut in her red light. I did not say she shut in her stern light. She did not shut her stern light in at all the whole period."
Now, the effect of that evidence is to show this, that both vessels were swinging, and the consequence is you get some explanation, if you take into account that they are swinging, and that this vessel, which was heading E. N. E., was swinging all the time, and that also the "Titanic's" stern was swinging to the South, as we have heard it, one gets some explanation of why it is that, first, you hear from the witnesses that they saw a green light and that subsequently they saw a port light. If I may illustrate that, suppose you have the "Californian's" head E. N. E., and you have the vessel going to the Westward, almost due W., I assume, of course, during that time the starboard light is exposed. First of all there would be the masthead lights seen of the vessel approaching the "Californian" being still, and then the green light of the "Titanic" would be seen. Then the "Titanic" comes to a stop, having approached a certain distance, and then she begins to swing to the Southward, and the consequence is she is in that position (indicating). The other vessel is swinging all the time. When she gets in that position the port light would be exposed, and that would explain why it is that you get first of all a green light seen, and then a red light, of the vessel according to the evidence which is given. The whole importance of it is, of course, not so very great as your Lordship must come to the conclusion, the same conclusion that one of the officers on board the vessel did, that the vessel which they saw that night and the vessel which had been sending out the distress signals was the "Titanic."
If one wanted any corroboration, but I do not dwell upon it inasmuch as your Lordship and those associated with you are satisfied about this, it would be found in Gibson's evidence when he talks about the blaze of light on the deck of the vessel. I should have thought the last thing you would see in the ordinary course of things on a cargo vessel would be a blaze of light on the deck, and that is a thing he talks of right through, a blaze of light right through. That is what you would expect to find on a passenger steamer, and no doubt what he did see. Once we have got as far as having established that these distress signals came from the "Titanic," that the Captain knew of them, and that he did not proceed either to the rescue of the vessel in distress or take what I should have thought was the step which was dictated at once when there was any doubt about at, that is, to call up the wireless operator and let him get into communication with the vessel, one gets really a state of things which is quite inexplicable.
The Commissioner: It is a most extraordinary thing that no attempt was made to communicate with the "Titanic."
The Attorney-General: Quite, the more extraordinary inasmuch as I have certainly understood as the Rule which everybody who goes to sea would never fail to observe, that if you see a vessel in distress you must do your utmost to get to it. I have always understood, certainly amongst sailors, not only in this country, but elsewhere, that that is a Rule of honour from which they do not depart, although they may commit other errors. In this particular case I am unable to find any possible explanation of what happened, except it may be that the Captain of the vessel was in ice for the first time, and would not take the risk of going to the rescue of another vessel
Page 958
which might have got into trouble, as he thought, from proceeding through ice when he himself had stopped. But even that does not explain why they did not call up the wireless operator to ascertain what the condition of things was. We have heard no explanation of it. I think your Lordship is left absolutely in the dark with reference to it. One can only conjecture, and I do not know that it is perhaps quite safe to speculate upon the reasons that made Captain Lord neither come out of his chart room to see what was happening, nor to take any step to communicate with the vessel in distress, even such a very slight effort as to have the wireless operator called up.
So far as it throws any light upon this Enquiry I do submit that the answer is to be found in the evidence to which I have already called attention, and that really we get very little assistance by going further into it. That this vessel, the "Californian," could have got to the "Titanic" and might have got to the "Titanic" in time to save the passengers is, I am afraid, the irresistible conclusion from this evidence. If she was at this distance of 5 to 7 miles, and she could steam 11 knots an hour; she did steam 11 - she could, in fact, do as much as 13 - even allowing for her having to deviate so as to avoid the ice-field, there still would have been a very considerable opportunity for her to have got there in time, more especially, I think, if you take into account that there must have been some discrepancy between the clocks, or anyhow, the time as given of these events by the witnesses for the "Californian." We know, fortunately, in one way the times at which the various things happened on board the "Titanic" with some exactness, partly by reason of the wireless messages which enable us to tell accurately what was happening within a few moments right up to the time when the "Titanic" was no longer able to send wireless messages, and if you put those times together, and compare them with the times of the "Californian," it is quite plain that at a quarter to one they were sending up rockets, and it is equally plain that the "Californian" must have seen the first or among the first of the rockets that were sent up by the "Titanic"; and it, therefore, must place the time, if you are comparing it with the "Titanic" time, at a quarter to one or thereabouts, and not a quarter-past one.
In point of fact the "Titanic" did not go down for an hour and a half after that, and that gave an hour and a half for this vessel, which could steam as much as 13 knots, but was certainly able to steam 11 knots; and putting it even further than the five to seven miles, it still gave her ample time to get there. Of course, the Captain says he was 19 1/2 miles away. No human being would suggest that the "Californian" could have seen the sidelights of the "Titanic," either her red light or her green light at a distance of 19 ½ miles. She must have been within an easy distance in order that her masthead lights and her sidelights were seen, as they were, by the "Californian."
And, my Lord, I would add to that that the "Californian" is shown to have been seen by the "Titanic"; that in any event the light that was seen so far as we know, according to all enquiries made and according to all the evidence put before you, was the light of the "Californian." I will not say that all the evidence points irresistibly to that, but I do say this, that if you compare the "Titanic" evidence with the "Californian" it is abundantly plain that the distance between them must have been comparatively small, that is to say certainly within five to seven miles, and could not have been 19 to 20 miles as the Captain of the "Californian" suggests.
Now I do not propose to go further into the evidence of the "Californian" unless your Lordship desires it, because it seems to me that when you have got those facts, really there is sufficient to establish quite clearly that these distress signals which were seen, were seen at a distance which would have enabled the "Californian" to get to the "Titanic." That is no doubt a material point, in view of the question which is put to your Lordship.
Now, my Lord, that I think concludes all that I desire to say to you upon the evidence in the case. The final conclusion to which I would call attention would be this, that this Court may recommend most useful precautions for saving life. The Board of Trade and Parliament may take the amplest care that proper precautions should be prescribed, and that there should be a sufficient protection given to those who are sailing on the seas against loss of life in the event of disaster. No human wisdom however great it may be, will, by means of regulations of this character or of Acts of Parliaments, be able to prevent, I will not say a recurrence of such a disaster as this, but the recurrence of disasters at sea. That is for the simple reason that everything depends, all the safety of the vessel depends, not upon the precautions that have been taken either by Government departments, or in consequence of any Act of Parliament, but upon the exercise of judgment and care by those who are responsible for the navigation. I can only say that as the result of this Enquiry it is to be hoped that no vessel will ever take such utterly unnecessary risks as I submit were taken on this voyage - that no vessel will ever again take such a risk as that, and that it will always be borne in mind by those who are responsible for the navigation that a little longer period passed by the passengers on board the vessel, and a few more hours taken in the passage from the United Kingdom to New York, or the return journey, are after all, and will after all, be very much better in the interests of everybody than to press along at a great rate of speed when there has been some indication of danger ahead. Nobody can say, I do not suppose any human being would be able to predict, that a vessel might meet an iceberg again in the same conditions as happened with the "Titanic"; but what one can predict is that there will come occasions upon which those responsible for the navigation will have to make up their minds whether it is not more prudent in the circumstances, to reduce speed and to go at a moderate speed, instead of pressing forward through the night in order to arrive at a particular time which they desire, and take, as I submit they were taking by this, an utterly unnecessary risk.
That is one lesson which, apart from every other lesson that may have been taught in this case, will, I hope, be borne upon those who are responsible for the navigation of our vessels. Your Lordship has had considerable experience in the Court over which you presided, more particularly in the Admiralty Division, of cases of collisions at sea. I would appeal to your Lordship's experience and the experience of those who are practiced in those Courts and those who also have experience in the navigation of vessels. Speaking generally the two causes of disaster to vessels are failure to keep a good look-out and proceeding at too great a rate of speed.
This disaster, as I submit, impresses upon all those who would have to consider these questions how important it is that in both these matters, both as regards look-out and as regards speed, the greatest care should be taken, when there is a definite indication, as there was given according to the view I have submitted in this case, of a possible danger by meeting either icebergs or ice-fields.
It only remains for me to say to your Lordship, if I may respectfully say so, that the latitude which you have seen fit to allow during the course of this case, so that all questions might be asked which
Page 959
would be of the slightest use, has had this effect, that it has very much narrowed the range of controversy, when we get to the end of the Enquiry. The result of it has been that on many of the points it has been shown quite clearly there can be no dispute, and that there is nothing, therefore, into which your Lordship would have to enquire closely for the purpose of making your Report. The points at issue have been very much narrowed. The result of it has been that, in any event, everything has been put before this Court, and I hope that your Lordship will be satisfied of that, that all the evidence that can have been of use to you has been presented to you, and certainly, as far as the Board of Trade is concerned, that all the material which can be of any value has been put before you.
With that, and thanking your Lordship, and thanking your Lordship in all earnestness and sincerity for the patience with which you have listened to this long Enquiry, I leave the matter to your Lordship for your Report.
The Commissioner: Very well. Thank you, Mr. Attorney. I will try to get this Report out in reasonable time.