British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 32
Final Arguments, cont.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, it is on another subject. That is why I will not trouble you to read them, but I want my Lord to mark them.
The Commissioner:
It has been read.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I read it in connection with speed, I think.
The Attorney-General:
I do not think so.
The Commissioner:
I know it has been read, but when it was read I do not know.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Then Mr. Lightoller at page 322, Question 14203, is asked by your Lordship: "Do not let me interrupt you; you were going to particularise the circumstances which you say combined to bring about this calamity. There was no moon, no wind, and no swell; is there anything else? - (A.) The berg into which we must have run in my estimation must have been a berg which had very shortly before capsized, and that would leave most of it above the water practically black ice. (Q.) You think so? - (A.) I think so; or it must have been a berg broken from a glacier, with the blue side towards us; but even in that case, had it been a glacier, there would still have been the white outline that Captain Smith spoke about; with a white outline against, no matter how dark a sky, providing the stars are out and distinctly visible, you ought to pick it out in quite sufficient time to clear it at any time. That is to say, providing the stars are out and providing it is not cloudy. You must remember that all the stars were out and there was not a cloud in the sky, so that, at any rate, there was bound to be a certain amount of reflected light."
On the subject of ice-blink which your Lordship mentioned yesterday, my attention has been called by Mr. Wilding to the fact that two different phenomena have been rather grouped together under the head of ice-blink. One is a sort of reflection in the sky, such as one sees from the lights of a town in the sky. That, I believe, is the ice-blink proper. The other is a sort of phosphorescent appearance from the white of the iceberg itself directly, and not by way of reflection from the sky. The ice-blink of which Sir Ernest Shackleton spoke, I think, was from the sky, and it is found in connection particularly, as I understand it, with large ice-fields. You have a reflection from the ice of the same nature, speaking generally, as the reflection from the sky where you have a number of lights burning at one spot. I am confining myself at present to the evidence with regard to the fact that a black berg is very unusual; and without going through it all, I may just recall to your Lordship's memory that the Witnesses who have described icebergs have spoken of them as white objects, and here you have very precise evidence that this phenomenon of a black berg is so rare that men who have spent their lives in the Atlantic have never seen it.
I do not propose to read again any passages in the evidence of Captain Rostron and Sir Ernest Shackleton, having some bearing upon the question of the black berg, because I read it all yesterday, and it is in your Lordship's recollection.
Then the second point of an extraordinary nature on this evening was that there was no swell at all. I first propose following the same order that I have taken with regard to the blackness of the berg, to establish the fact that there was no swell, and, secondly, to establish the fact that such a calm is extremely unusual on the Atlantic.
Now, with regard to the fact of the perfect calm, take first on page 19 what Jewell says.
The Commissioner:
By a perfect calm you mean no swell.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, that there was no swell; that there was no wind is conceded.
The Commissioner:
Yes, I think so. I have very little experience, but I am astonished to hear that there could be no swell in the Atlantic.
Sir Robert Finlay:
It is an extremely rare condition, met with once in a long lifetime; perhaps not at all.
The Commissioner:
It makes one wonder whether there was not a swell.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Well, we have very precise and positive evidence about it.
The Commissioner:
Yes.
Sir Robert Finlay:
At page 19, Question 142, Jewell is asked: "Was the sea smooth? - (A.) Yes, very smooth." He is speaking of the time when he had left the ship and was in the boat. "Question 140: And you were told to remain in the water below that gangway? - (A.) Yes. (The Solicitor-General.) Those were your orders. How far off from the side of the ship did you keep? - (A.) We kept right alongside. (Q.) Was the sea smooth? - (A.) Yes, very smooth."
The Commissioner:
Do you read a very smooth sea as meaning no swell.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I think it means it there, my Lord. I do not say it would be satisfactory if it rested there. All that Jewell says is that it was very smooth. The other Witnesses show there was not even a swell, but one would infer from his saying that it was very smooth that there was not a swell. One does not speak of a sea where there is a swell going as a smooth sea. It is, of course, absence of wind, but the sea when the swell is on is certainly not smooth. However, that is cleared up effectually by the other Witnesses.
Then Lee, at page 73, Question 2403, is asked, "And no wind? - (A.) And no wind whatever, barring what the ship made herself. (Q.) Quite a calm sea? - (A.) Quite a calm sea." That is all that he says on the point.
Then we come to Joughin, the baker, on page 142, Question 6084, "Did it keep calm till daylight, or did the wind rise at all? - (A.) It was just like a pond." That is conclusive, I submit, to show that when the first Witness spoke of its being perfectly smooth it meant that there was no swell.
The Commissioner:
I do not think it matters very much, but some breeze, I think, did get up before daylight.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
But what you are upon is the condition of the sea at the time of the collision.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Exactly.
The Commissioner:
It is of that condition of things, if it is to be taken in the sense in which you contend, which, if you were sitting on the deck would not cause any movement of the rail up and down that you might look at. It would be perfectly steady - no wind and no swell.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I doubt on these very big ships whether with a mere swell there would be any noticeable movement of the rail. The ship strides over such a space in the sea that I doubt whether one would appreciate the fact that there was no swell by looking at the rail, for I doubt whether there would be any appreciable movement of the rail even if there were a swell. And there is distinct evidence to the fact that from the deck you could not realise that there was no swell, and that that fact was realised only after the people got down to the water. Your Lordship reminded us yesterday of one piece of evidence, that it was so still that it affected the disengaging of the falls.
I had just read what Charles Joughin, the baker, says about its being like a pond, and he had the best opportunities of observation, because you will remember he was swimming about, and he gave a very interesting account.
The Commissioner:
I remember it very well; he went through a strange experience.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, and he was a very plucky fellow, because he recognised the perfect propriety of the action of the man who shoved him off the raft he was endeavouring to get on. Joughin said in a disinterested way, which few people could emulate, that he now realised that if he had got on it he would probably have caused the upset of the raft, because it was full to its utmost capacity, and he thought the man was quite right in shoving him away.
Then Fleet, on page 410, deals with this point also at Question 17246: "The sea, we know, was very calm? - (A.) The sea calm." This is an examination by the Attorney-General.
I am taking now Lightoller and Pitman. Mr. Lightoller is on page 305, at Question 13569, and eight questions on: "(The Solicitor-General.) I am glad he should add it. (To the Witness.) Tell us what you were going to say? - (A.) In the event of meeting ice there are many things we look for. In the first place, a slight breeze. Of course, the stronger the breeze the more visible will the ice be, or, rather, the breakers on the ice. Therefore, at any time, when there is a slight breeze you will always see at nighttime a phosphorescent line round a berg, growler, or whatever it may be; the slight swell which we invariably look for in the North Atlantic causes the same effect, the break on the base of the berg, so showing a phosphorescent glow. All bergs - all ice more or less - have a crystallised side. (Q.) It is white? - (A.) Yes; it has been crystallised through exposure, and that in all cases will reflect a certain amount of light, what is termed ice-blink, and that ice-blink from a fairly large berg you will frequently see before the berg comes above the horizon. (Q.) Now, let me follow. Was there any breeze on this night? - (A.) When I left the deck at 10 o'clock there was a slight breeze - Oh, pardon me, no; I take that back. No, it was calm, perfectly calm. (Q.) And there was no breeze. Was there any? - (A.) As far as we could see from the bridge the sea was comparatively smooth. Not that we expected it to be smooth, because, looking from the ship's bridge very frequently with quite a swell on, the sea will appear just as smooth as a billiard table, perfectly smooth; you cannot detect the swell. The higher you are the more difficult it is to detect a slight swell. (Q.) That means, then, does it not, that if you are on the bridge and you are relying on the fact that there may be a slight swell, you really cannot tell from the bridge whether there was a swell or not - a slight swell? - (A.) We look at it rather the other way - that, though the sea may appear smooth, we pretty well know that there is a swell, though it may not be visible to the eye, nor yet have any effect on the ship." That, I submit, bears out what I ventured to submit in answer to your Lordship's question just now, "It is a most rare occurrence? (Q.) You mean there nearly always is a swell in the North Atlantic? - (A.) This is the first time in my experience in the Atlantic in 24 years, and I have been going across the Atlantic nearly all the time, of seeing an absolutely flat sea. (Q.) Do you agree from that experience that this was an occasion when it was an absolutely flat sea? - (A.) Absolutely flat. (The Commissioner.) Not in fact, but to all appearance? - (A.) In fact, my Lord. (The Solicitor-General.) He means in fact, my Lord. (The Commissioner.) Do you mean there was no swell at all? - (A.) I mean to say that the sea was so absolutely flat that when we lowered the boats down we had to actually overhaul the tackles to unhook them because there was not the slightest lift on the boat to allow for slacking unhooked."
That, I think, ends what the Witness says in this passage in that connection. So that there you have it, my Lord, that you may have a swell and no effect on the ship, and from the deck you could not distinguish by the appearance of the sea as to whether there was a swell, which there almost invariably is, or whether, as once in a lifetime happens, it is a perfect calm without any swell at all.
The Commissioner:
It is pointed out to me, Sir Robert, that he never had had the experience which would have enabled him to say whether there was a flat surface such as he described before, because he had never been in a boat. The only way to find it out was being in a boat and being unable to disengage the tackle.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
That is the only way to find it out, and unless he had had experience of that kind before, his experience of 24 years was of no use.
Sir Robert Finlay:
That is a perfectly just observation as far as it goes, but at the same time I think we have from other Witnesses the statement - I think among them Sir Ernest Shackleton - that the absence of swell is an extraordinarily rare phenomenon.
The Commissioner:
I have been on the ocean a good deal, according to my own view of the matter, and I do not remember any occasion when there was absolutely no motion of the ship.
Sir Robert Finlay:
It is certainly very rare indeed, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
It is very slow and very pleasant, but it is there.
Sir Robert Finlay:
On a big ship my impression is that you do not notice a mere swell, unless it is a very big thing indeed after a storm; that there is really no motion on the ship, because the ship extends over such an extent of the sea. In a small boat, of course, you get it very much, because the boat rises and falls with the swell, but on a big steamer you do not. Of course, that accounts for the fact that people are so much more seasick in small boats than in big steamers. The steadiness of the steamer prevents you being sensible of the motion of the sea, and the sea from the deck looks perfectly calm.
The Commissioner:
There is the possibility that the vessel and the boat will move simultaneously and to the same extent upwards and downwards; and if that took place, then the tackle would remain fastened to the boat, and the fact that the tackle did not become disengaged would have no significance.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I submit, my Lord, that that is very improbable, because you have the great mass of the ship and the small mass of the boat. The great mass of the ship is, as experience every time one goes to sea shows, very little, if at all, affected by the swell; the small boat is affected.
The Commissioner:
Would that be so if there were a very long swell?
Sir Robert Finlay:
I submit so, my Lord. You may have a swell so big after a storm that it affects by its motion even a big ship, but my point is, and I submit it answers the observation your Lordship mentioned as a possible one, that the amount to which the small boat is affected would be absolutely different from the amount to which the big ship was affected, and it is that which you have to look at on the question of disengaging the tackle.
The Commissioner:
I suppose a small boat in a swell does move relatively much more than a large vessel would.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, that is my point.
The Commissioner:
I am not sure about it.
Sir Robert Finlay:
It is so, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
It depends on the length of the swell and the height also.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Oh, it does, but I do not think it can be doubted that the small boat will be very much more affected by the swell than a big ship.
The Commissioner:
However, here is Lightoller actually looking at a boat, and at the tackle, and with the large steamer at that time alongside of it, and this is the expression of his opinion.
Sir Robert Finlay:
That is his observation.
The Commissioner:
I mean his opinion on the state of things at that time - based upon his observation.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, and I submit the fact is proved by the evidence of all these previous Witnesses "like a pond," "perfectly smooth," and so on. Then you have Mr. Lightoller saying that when he got down he realised what he had not been able to realise from the deck, that there was no swell at all. One knows perfectly well that the degree of motion on a ship varies with the size of the ship. Comparing, at one end, a small boat with the "Titanic" at the other end, of course the difference is tremendous. But it goes through all gradations. In a small steamer there is a great deal more effect produced by the swell than there is on a large steamer, and the larger the steamer the less the effect produced is. One has experienced that in going in what used to be considered a big boat, although I confess they have got to be comparatively small as compared with the enormous vessels that are made now.
Then, my Lord, on page 306, Question 13615, there is an answer describing that conversation with the Captain to which your Lordship referred just now. I do not know that I need read it; it is fresh in your Lordship's recollection. I will read it if your Lordship wishes.
The Commissioner:
Do you mean the conversation on the bridge?
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
It has been read three or four times.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, I will not read it again, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
It is to be found in the Note of the American Evidence, and it is to be found in the Note of this Evidence, and it has been read several times. Mr. Scanlan read it -
Sir Robert Finlay:
I only mentioned it in order that it might not be supposed I was passing it over. Then on page 307, Question 13672, the Solicitor-General says: "(Q.) Of course, if there was no swell so that you could not at all rely on the breaking of the water against the edge of an iceberg or growler, it would be particularly hard to see, would it not? - (A.) It would be more difficult if it was not of any size. (Q.) Whereas an iceberg that is more out of the water, on a fine night, you thought would probably show you some white side or white edge? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) And on a fine night you would be able to see the whiteness? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Was that the reason you repeated the message about growlers? - (A.) Yes." That was to keep a sharp look-out for ice and growlers, your Lordship remembers.
Then on page 322 there is a group of answers, some 13 in all, beginning at Question 14196: "(Q.) Right up to the time the ship went down, is it your view that the conditions were the same as they were between 6 and 10? - (A.) Precisely. (Q.) Can you suggest at all how it can have come about that this iceberg should not have been seen at a greater distance?" Then the Witness gave an answer which I think is perfectly in your Lordship's mind. Your Lordship has referred to it more than once. I think I will read it again. It is an important answer, and perhaps it might be well if I read it.
The Commissioner:
We have had it read several times.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I agree, my Lord; it is present to all of us, I think. Question 14199 is the conical question: "And most particular of all, in my estimation, is the fact - a most extraordinary circumstance - that there was not any swell. Had there been the slightest degree of swell, I have no doubt that berg would have been seen in plenty of time to clear it."
Then, at Question 14207, there is a question put by your Lordship in continuation of former questions: "The iceberg, in your opinion, had probably quite recently turned turtle? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) And was displaying black ice with nothing white about it - that is it, is it not? - (A.) That is about it. (Q.) Does that, in your opinion, account for the man on the look-out not seeing the iceberg? - (A.) Yes."
Then on page 327 he is asked some questions bearing on this point, at Question 14330 and the four following questions. Mr. Scanlan says: "This night you have described as being a particularly bad night for seeing icebergs. Is not that so? - (A.) I do not think I mentioned that word "bad," did I? (Q.) You did not mention that word, but I wish you not to misunderstand me. I am not purporting to give your exact words. You said it was realised at the time that it would be more difficult on account of there being no wind and the sea being a level calm? - (A.) Yes, that is right. (Q.) Added to that, you had the condition of there being no moon? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) And the other conditions which you described to my Lord. Were not these circumstances which would indicate to any experienced Officer that it was necessary to take extra precautions for safety? - (A.) As a matter of fact, we were unaware of the sea being flat. All the precautions were taken which we thought necessary. (Q.) Do you say you were not aware then that the sea was flat? - (A.) No. (Q.) At all events, it was more difficult then than under normal circumstances to see an iceberg. You observed that yourself from 6 to 10? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Although there were abnormal difficulties, you took no extra precautions whatever? - (A.) Have I said so? (Q.) I suggest to you that you took no extra precautions whatever? - (A.) But I did." The precautions were the very special instructions to everyone on the bridge and on the watch to keep a sharp look-out for ice and growlers.
The last passage in Mr. Lightoller's evidence on this point is at page 330, Question 14421. This is the conversation repeated again in answer to Mr. Scanlan.
The Commissioner:
Yes.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Then, my Lord, Pitman's evidence bears on this point also. It is not so voluminous as that of Mr. Lightoller with reference to it, but it bears on it. It is at page 352, Question 15206, and the following Questions: "(Q.) Would it not have been possible to have lowered the boats half filled and then filled them down the companion ladders? - (A.) No, not if there had been the slightest bit of swell. (Q.) But under the conditions that actually took place, it would have been possible" - that is to say, the sea being like a pond; that is what the question refers to - "(A.) Yes, but we did not know it was so calm until we got into the water. (Q.) I suppose you knew that there was not a heavy swell on, did you not? - (A.) We did not; you could not tell from that ship."
Then on page 359, Question 15509: "(Q.) Is it your evidence that even at that distance it was very difficult to make out that this was an iceberg - to make out what it was? - (A.) To make out what it was, yes. (Q.) Was that on account of the weather conditions or the condition of the atmosphere? - (A.) I think it was due to the conditions that were then prevailing at the time, a calm, oily sea."
My Lord, I submit it is conclusively established that there was an absence of swell; that that was a circumstance which prevented there being a break at the bottom of this dark berg which would have led to it being detected long before it was in fact.
Having established that, I hope conclusively, in point of fact, I desire to call your Lordship's attention, as shortly as may be, to the evidence that shows that such a calm as that, such an absence of swell, is a most extraordinary circumstance in the Atlantic. Mr. Lightoller says, at page 305, Question 13574, that he never saw it on any other occasion. I have read the passage, I think, just now, and I need not read it again.
Captain Cannons says, on page 669, Question 23835: "Are those circumstances very rare? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) A perfectly flat sea, no swell, no ripple? - (A.) They are extremely rare in the North Atlantic."
The Commissioner:
You ought to read the next.
Sir Robert Finlay:
If your Lordship pleases: "(Q.) But still, such circumstances are sometimes found? - (A.) Yes, my Lord. (Q.) How far do you suppose you would see an iceberg in those circumstances? - (A.) I should say a mile."
The Commissioner:
The point is that such circumstances are sometimes found.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Sometimes, but very rarely, and the combination of an iceberg just capsized, in all probability, so that it was black - the combination of that which is a very rare thing, so rare that many gentlemen who have spent their lives on the Atlantic have never seen it, with the entire absence of swell, which is also a very rare thing, is, of course, still more unlikely to happen.
Then, my Lord, Sir Ernest Shackleton, at pages 720 and 721, is asked about this at Question 25063.
I will read the latter part of the answer. I need not read the question nor the earlier part of the answer, but at the top of page 721 he says: "Of course, that particular night was an abnormal night at sea, in being a flat calm; it is a thing that might never occur again.
The Commissioner:
I suppose by the expression "a flat calm" he means no swell?
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, obviously, my Lord, of course no one would say that in the Atlantic you may not have an absence of wind.
The Commissioner:
I am quite sure of this, that in the Atlantic with no wind, but a great swell which you may have, nobody in his senses would call the sea a flat calm; I would not.
Sir Robert Finlay:
No, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
I am told that a seaman would call it a flat calm. I have been sitting in a ship with no wind when I have seen the rail go up to the sky and down again - and it never occurred to me that anyone would call that a flat calm. But I am told it would be called a flat calm.
Sir Robert Finlay:
It would not be a flat calm for practical purposes for anyone who was not proof against seasickness.
The Commissioner:
Is Sir Ernest Shackleton, by any chance, here?
Sir Robert Finlay:
The next answer, I think, makes it as clear as if he were here himself, my Lord: "(Q.) That is what Mr. Lightoller says. You say apparently it is very rare to get such a flat calm as there was that night?"
The Commissioner:
And his answer is: "I only remember it once or twice in about 20 years' experience - the sea absolutely calm, without a swell."
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, "as it was recorded to have been."
The Commissioner:
I suppose if you talk about the sea being absolutely calm it does mean an absolutely flat sea?
Sir Robert Finlay:
That explains what he means when he talked about a flat calm in the previous answer. It demonstrates that Sir Ernest Shackleton, when he talks of a flat calm there, meant not even a swell.
The Commissioner:
He speaks in the very next question about the swell.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes. (Q.) And if I followed correctly what you said earlier, it would make it more difficult to pick up an iceberg with the eyes? - (A.) Decidedly. (Q.) If you had this calm sea? - (A.) Yes, decidedly so. (Q.) Although it was a clear night? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) There would be no indication of the water breaking around it? - (A.) No, there would be none in a condition like that. It takes very little sea and very little swell, with the Northern bergs, which are submerged about seven times to one above, for what we call a splash to get up and give you an indication."
Now, my Lord, I submit that is enough to show the great rarity of this phenomenon, the absence of swell. The absence of swell is proved to have existed. The presence of the black berg is proved to have existed, and it is proved that that is a most unusual phenomenon; and the combination of the two, of course, was extraordinary. There was a fatality about this which might not occur in 100 years or more.
The Commissioner:
There is the other phenomenon: assuming that there was a good look-out, as I am disposed to think there was, there is undoubtedly the fact that this berg was not seen until it was close upon the nose of the ship.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, and that can only be accounted for by the two combined circumstances of the black berg, and the absence even of a swell. These two unusual circumstances were combined. That is, of course, an extraordinary combination; and it was that which led to this berg not being seen before. There was a sharp look-out. The men had been specially cautioned to look-out for icebergs and for growlers, and they were looking out; there was a good look-out both from the bridge and from the crow's-nest. It was not seen. The answer to the question why it was not seen is simply this, that you had an unexampled state of things, because two very rare things happened to be combined on that one occasion.
And then, my Lord, the circumstances of the accident itself are of the same extraordinary nature. As soon as the berg is reported the order was given, "Hard-a-starboard." Judging by looking to what followed upon that order, it might be said: "It is a pity it was given," but it would have been a most grossly improper thing not to give the order. "Error of judgment." if used with reference to that order, can only be in this sense that, as things turned out, it was unfortunate - most unfortunate.
The Commissioner:
It may have been; it depends entirely upon Mr. Wilding's view. That it was good seamanship I suppose no one doubts.
Sir Robert Finlay:
No; in fact, it would have been outrageously bad seamanship to hold on even with reversing.
The Commissioner:
The only thing is that, if Mr. Wilding is right, then running stem on would have caused the loss of 200 lives, but would have saved the ship and the other lives that were lost.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I think that is very probable, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
That is what Mr. Wilding means, I suppose.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I think it is so, judging from what we know from this vessel; if you had run right on to the berg there would have been a tremendous shock, and all the people in the forepart of the ship would have been killed, particularly the firemen.
The Commissioner:
But she would not have scraped a hole right along her side, and she would not have foundered.
Continued >
