British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 34
Final Arguments, cont.
The Attorney-General:
I know. I am going to deal with that and deal with it also from the view put forward by my friend. Taking into account that she is travelling at this speed of 700 yards and what was done during the time (it is almost impossible to be quite precise about it, but we know what happened.), I will take the order of events without referring to the evidence which no doubt is present to your Lordship's mind and those who are assisting you. Fleet, one of the two look-out men in the crow's-nest sees the iceberg, he sees it after being told at half-past nine - or rather the preceding look-out man having been told at half-past nine - to keep this special look-out for icebergs and growlers, which is passed on to him at ten o'clock, when he goes on duty. He has been on duty for an hour and forty minutes with his mate Lee in the crow's-nest, looking out for ice, the ship travelling all the time at this speed of 22 knots. I should think if you have to peer into the darkness with the vessel proceeding at that pace, an hour and forty minutes must be rather a strain, but two hours seems to be accepted as quite a fair time for a man to be acting on the look-out, and I make no comment on that except this, that it might have a tendency to make a man a little slacker during his last half hour. But that is all surmise. We have no evidence to indicate that it was, except the fact of what happened; but at 11.40 he suddenly sees an iceberg. He then goes to the bell. He strikes it with a signal three times, "Something ahead." Your Lordship remembers he then goes immediately to the telephone, he telephones to the bridge - they have one of those loud-speaking telephones there - he reports through the telephone to the bridge, "Iceberg ahead." The answer is, "Thank you," and then the helm is hard-a-starboarded. According to the evidence of Hichens, the Quartermaster, the order is given "Hard-a-starboard," at once when the telephone message comes through. It is so close in point of seconds that it is really very difficult to say whether that did actually happen or whether the order may have been given by Mr. Murdoch, having seen the iceberg himself - it is so close in point of time that really I do not think anyone can determine that, and if it assists in any way the case of the White Star, I am perfectly ready to assume that Mr. Murdoch saw it quite as quickly as the look-out men, and that the order was given by him "Hard-a-starboard" on his own initiative, and not on the report that was given from the look-out. It really is only a question of two or three seconds, and you cannot do more than to say that the helm was hard-a-starboarded at once. Your Lordship will remember he had just got it over - I think it is 40 degrees to get it hard-a-starboard - he had, in fact, just got the helm right over when the vessel struck. She had meanwhile veered two points to port - that is the position. We know according to the evidence of the turning circle how long it would take her. I have not the figures before me, but I think I am right in saying it takes 37 seconds at this pace for her to turn the two points to port. Therefore, she, having turned the two points to port must have taken 37 seconds, and I do not think that I am adding too much or treating them unfairly when I say if you add three seconds for the report of what takes place you get as nearly as you will ever be able to get the time that had elapsed between the report of Fleet and the striking of the iceberg; that is between the sighting of the iceberg and the striking of the iceberg at most 40 seconds must have elapsed. That I think is the position of the discussion on the evidence such as we know it. Now that means this, that the furthest distance at which the iceberg was seen from the vessel was 466 yards - anything from 450 to 500 yards is the extreme distance that you can put it. I say 466 because it is two-thirds of 700 yards which I was assuming she was travelling per minute. Therefore, what we have got established is that this vessel going along at this pace, travelling at this 700 yards a minute, only sees the iceberg at a distance of 466 yards, and that that is not enough. However quickly the men may act at the helm, however swiftly the order is given, and however quickly the Officer in charge acts, you cannot navigate that vessel with her 850 feet length out of the way of that iceberg in time. In the statements which I have been making in regard to these matters, I think I am stating facts proved on the evidence which are beyond all question and beyond all controversy.
It has been suggested during the course of the case - I only make the reference to get rid of it so far as I am concerned - that if the order had not been given "Hard-a-starboard" and the vessel had gone straight on to the iceberg, it was indicated by Mr. Wilding as in his opinion, and, of course, I accept it not only as the opinion of a highly skilled gentleman who has been of the greatest assistance to us in the course of the case, but equally as his honest opinion formed, apart altogether from this case and the consequences of it - that the vessel would have telescoped to the extent of 100 feet or more. That is his view. I only wish to make this one observation with reference to it, speaking with the experience of some of these cases, I do not mean only shipping cases - not nearly so many as your Lordship has had before you - I think the one thing which it is impossible to foretell, even for gentlemen of the highest scientific evidence, is exactly what will happen if you take a different course from that which was taken, a course such as nobody has ever seen put into practice and which is the course which is assumed for the purpose of arriving on this conclusion. I am sure there is every reason for supposing Mr. Wilding would be right in saying she would be telescoped for 100 feet or a little more, and that would have been the extent of the disaster. I can only speak as a person who has not scientific training, but I should have thought if that happened - (I am saying this, of course, more especially to your Lordship and to those skilled gentlemen who are associated with you) - I should have thought that if a vessel telescoped 100 feet or more it is a very difficult thing to say what would have happened to the ship - whether her plates would not have been so started that the water would have come in, or what damage otherwise would have been caused - and it can only be surmised. I do not dwell upon it, because no one will suggest - certainly I should not suggest - that what Captain Smith ought to have done was to have gone head on, stem on to this iceberg.
The Commissioner:
I do not think you need trouble yourself about that.
The Attorney-General:
No; I should never have dreamed of doing so.
The Commissioner:
I think the gentlemen who are sitting with me are of opinion, and certainly I am, that in starboarding the helm the proper thing was done in face of the iceberg.
The Attorney-General:
As your Lordship pleases. That is the view I have formed, and I am very glad to hear it is also the view of the Court. Now, what one has to grapple with in this case is, assuming that you have competent men on the look-out, why this iceberg was not detected earlier. That is really the crux of the case.
The Commissioner:
To my mind it seems a question of the alleged abnormal conditions of the night. It brings one right up against it. If the look-out was good what was it that prevented them from seeing the iceberg at a greater distance?
The Attorney-General:
Quite. I think one has to bear in mind also when you say: Was the look-out good, that it has to be very good for a vessel travelling at this pace. I do not think you can separate the two. I have tried to do it myself and have found it difficult. I do not think you can say: "Well now, let us look at it from the point of view of the look-out and let us look at it from the point of view of speed." My submission to the Court is that you have to consider whether or not the look-out was sufficient and whether or not speed ought to have been reduced, by the consideration of the actual facts, that is the speed of 700 yards a minute and look-out men in the crow's-nest and on the bridge. It is the combination. I think your Lordship indicated it earlier.
The Commissioner:
What I understand is this, that the possibility of even a good look-out not detecting the iceberg must be taken into consideration.
The Attorney-General:
That is so. When you are going at this pace you must take into account that a man may have his eyes or both men might have both their eyes directed to starboard in the crow's-nest, their attention attracted by some light or something which they thought was a light.
The Commissioner:
Some ship's light.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, and here is this vessel travelling ahead at 700 yards a minute. I will assume they might have seen it at a distance of a mile and a half, which would mean that if they were looking at the light for only a minute, by the time they got back to looking ahead they would already have been within only 450 yards of that iceberg. That is the difficulty of that situation, and that is why it is I say that you must take into consideration in considering the look-out the speed at which the vessel was travelling.
Now, I am going to make some observations with regard to that because I am going to suggest that in any event on this night, expecting ice as they were, they ought to have had a look-out on the stem as well as in the crow's-nest. I am going to base that on the evidence which has been given. I am not unmindful of a good deal of evidence which said that that is only done in a haze.
The Commissioner:
That seems to involve the contention that the look-out was bad.
The Attorney-General:
Well, not necessarily. I do not think it necessarily does.
The Commissioner:
If it was necessary to supplement the men in the crow's-nest, then it must have been that the men in the crow's-nest did not constitute a sufficient and proper look-out. If they did they would not have to be supplemented.
The Attorney-General:
When you said the look-out was bad I thought you meant they were negligent, but I see what you mean.
The Commissioner:
No, I mean that the look-out provided by the Officers on the ship was not sufficient.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, my Lord, I am going to contend that the look-out was not sufficient, taking into consideration the rate of speed and, moreover, the conditions on that night - what I will call the unusual conditions, because I prefer the term, if I may say so respectfully, to the one which has been used during the course of the discussion of "abnormal" conditions, as "abnormal" may imply something more than I mean, but I accept "unusual conditions" - I am going to deal with those. They are as I understand it, two and only two which have been suggested during the course of this Enquiry. I mean the fact that the night was fine, that there was no wind, that the sea was calm, had nothing unusual in it, you might not expect to find it in April-
The Commissioner:
I should have thought all those circumstances were favourable circumstances, not circumstances that created any difficulty.
The Attorney-General:
No; but I wanted to deal with what they said were the conditions. I agree, if I may say so, those are not the conditions which I think are relied upon as making the difficulty - I was dealing with the conditions of that night. But the two conditions which are urged in favour of the White Star Line are, first, that the iceberg was dark in colour and, therefore, not easily seen, and second, that there was a flat calm. Those are the only two conditions which I have been able to discover from the evidence as the usual conditions of that night.
The Commissioner:
I suggest that when the evidence is tested, the only abnormal condition not known to Lightoller and not known to the Captain was the alleged absence of any swell.
The Attorney-General:
May I say with respect, I know that has been put forward, but I do not think that is the evidence. It has been accepted, I know, during the course of the case and I agree there is a statement to that effect. I am going to call your Lordship's attention to it, because my submission is that from the very first Lightoller was perfectly aware that there was a flat calm. He may not have known the full extent of the flatness of the calm, if I may use that expression, he may not have been aware of this, that when the boats were lowered into the water on that night the sea was so flat that they had actually no lift in the boat at all at any moment so as to free the tackle. That is his explanation. But, my Lord, that is of comparatively little importance, the circumstance in itself that there was no lift. What is of importance is that there was substantially no swell, and my submission is that Lightoller quite recognised that from the earliest moment.
The Commissioner:
Is it not the same thing - no lift and no swell? He wants to make out at all events that it is the same thing.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, the only distinction I draw between them is this, so far as I can judge of the evidence. I will call your Lordship's attention to it because I think it is of the highest importance, and it is almost the only portion of the evidence I am going to call your Lordship's attention to in detail. According to the view which I am going to put before you, if you read Lightoller's evidence it destroys the argument which has been put forward on behalf of the Company by my friend that there were those two unusual conditions, unknown to the Officers on board the "Titanic."
The Commissioner:
What are the two?
The Attorney-General:
I am giving them full credit; the two are that the iceberg was of a dark colour, and the other was the flat calm.
The Commissioner:
The absence of swell.
The Attorney-General:
That is what is meant by the flat calm.
The Commissioner:
That is what is meant by the flat calm; yes, those are the two.
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
And the others they had recognised already.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, I agree. Those are the two that, according to my view, are the ones that are relied upon. Now the flat calm is relied upon for this reason. One has to consider it closely. It is said by Lightoller, or rather by those who are arguing on behalf of the Company, that if it had not been a flat calm there would have been a ripple. That was the expression used - there would have been a swell, a swell which would have caused a ripple or a break of the water at the base of the berg on the waterline, and that would have indicated to anyone who was on the look-out at a considerable distance that there was an iceberg ahead. That is the whole point, the whole substance of the argument based upon the flat calm.
Now, my Lord, the answer which I think must be made to that, or which at any rate I am going to submit for your Lordship's consideration, is that if it is true that you ought and you could as a reasonably prudent man in such circumstances rely upon this ripple or break of the wave as an indication, Lightoller knew about it, that is to say, he knew it was absent on that night. Lightoller knew - and when I say Lightoller, of course, I include the other Officers - already at 9 o'clock in the evening that the weather was so unusually calm, that the water was so flat, that it formed the subject of conversation between him and the Captain of the vessel, so struck were they by it. And why was it they would discuss such a question as that? Because, apparently, they both thought it was a pity that there was not a little wind to make a little sea to create a ripple or wave which would break at the base of the iceberg as they were approaching ice and they wanted that extra indication. That is their own view of it. I will go at once to this passage.
The Commissioner:
I suppose I am obliged to accept Lightoller's statement about that conversation?
The Attorney-General:
Well, I do not know.
The Commissioner:
I do not like these precise memories; I doubt their existence. However, there it is.
The Attorney-General:
There it is, and we have to deal with it on the evidence. The reason why I am dealing with Lightoller's evidence is because Lightoller is the only person who makes this excuse.
The Commissioner:
Yes, and it sounds to me so like an excuse.
The Attorney-General:
Well, that is the view I am going to put forward, that it is only an excuse.
The Commissioner:
Oh no, I do not think it will suit your argument to do that.
The Attorney-General:
I think it does - at least I do not know what is in your Lordship's mind - if I have got rid for the purpose of this argument of the view put forward that they did not know on board that the calm was a flat calm - then there is an end of the argument with regard to that unusual condition.
The Commissioner:
You can say if that conversation did take place, the greatest precautions ought to have been taken.
The Attorney-General:
That is the point I am making.
The Commissioner:
But what occurs to me is this - did it take place? If you want to dwell upon your argument you must stick to the conversation and say it did take place. My difficulty is that it is not contradicted in any way.
The Attorney-General:
I can only deal with it upon the evidence which is before the Court.
The Commissioner:
Yes, quite right. I have read most carefully Lightoller's evidence, not only that part of it but the whole of it, and I must say that it does not make a completely favourable impression on my mind. I have read it very carefully.
The Attorney-General:
Of course, it is very difficult, you must deal with the evidence before you.
The Commissioner:
I am afraid I must deal with it as I find it.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, if you eliminate altogether from consideration Lightoller's evidence. Suppose you said this conversation did not take place, the result of it would be this, that there would be nothing to indicate that there was anything so exceptional on that night. His is the only evidence of it.
The Commissioner:
Has it occurred to you that the conversation about what I call the abnormality, the abnormal condition, perhaps came to the mind of Mr. Lightoller by way of enforcing the fact that there was an abnormal condition? Do you follow what I mean? However, perhaps it is not worthwhile discussing it. What I mean is this; I will be quite plain about it. He wants to make out an abnormal condition and it occurs to him that if he speaks of a conversation in which the abnormal conditions were referred to, that is evidence that there were abnormal conditions; and he has not seen that by the very conversation that he speaks to he shows that they were warned of the abnormal conditions.
The Attorney-General:
Of course, the dilemma is this. The dilemma is apparent from what your Lordship has said. If there were no abnormal conditions, then all this argument which has been addressed as an excuse falls to the ground; if there were abnormal conditions then the argument which I am putting to your Lordship is that they had full notice of it and that that necessitated unusual precautions.
The Commissioner:
So far as I am concerned, the White Star Company's case would have been very much better without that conversation.
The Attorney-General:
It might be, but there it is. If no such conversation took place -
The Commissioner:
If no such conversation took place and they came here and said, "We discovered afterwards that we were in the middle of abnormal conditions," that would be one thing; but here the case put forward by Lightoller was, "We were in the middle of abnormal conditions and were actually talking about them."
The Attorney-General:
We must deal with the statement by him which is the only evidence we have got, given in a good deal of detail as your Lordship remembers. Just see what he says about this. The passage is at page 306, Question 13615. The whole of his evidence for five or six pages is of very great importance. I deal with it particularly because by this I am attacking the evidence which bears most against the view for which I am contending at the moment. Your Lordship will remember it begins by a very sharp drop of temperature of something like ten degrees; it gets to freezing point, that you have got in the earlier questions on that page which I do not trouble your Lordship to read because I know you have it in mind. It begins by this - that during a couple of hours that evening the temperature dropped from 43 degrees to 33 degrees, and subsequently dropped again to freezing. That is the position. He is on deck: "(13615.) At five minutes to nine, when the Commander came on the bridge (I will give it to you as near as I remember) he remarked that it was cold, and as far as I remember I said, 'Yes, it is very cold, sir.'"
The Commissioner:
Read that slowly.
The Attorney-General:
Yes. "'In fact,' I said, 'it is only one degree above freezing. I have sent word down to the carpenter and rung up the engine room, and told them that it is freezing, or will be during the night.'" There is no doubt about that, because there was somebody else who took the message.
The Commissioner:
There is no doubt about that. I am talking of the conversation.
The Attorney-General:
I mean there is no doubt about the message, and I suppose there is no doubt he would have reported it.
The Commissioner:
I have no doubt about that, but this man purports to remember immaterial little observations that took place on the bridge that night: "It is very cold. Yes, it is freezing." I doubt very much whether he remembers anything of the kind.
The Attorney-General:
The exact words it may be, but your Lordship sees the temperature is of some importance. It is not to be exaggerated, I agree.
The Commissioner:
I am talking about his memory about this conversation.
The Attorney-General:
"We then commenced to speak about the weather. He said" - that is the Captain - "'There is not much wind.'" Now look at these words: "I said, 'No.'"
The Commissioner:
That is one abnormal thing. "There is not much wind" - abnormal in this sense, you know, that there would be an absence of fringe round the base of the berg.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, but I do not think you can say that that is abnormal.
The Commissioner:
No, it is not abnormal; but that is one of the things which he relies on subsequently. No wind, no swell, black ice - they did not talk about black ice in this conversation.
The Attorney-General:
They do talk about black ice; but may I point out - I do not want to be hypercritical about it, but I think it is important to bear it in mind - that there is a difference, as of course your Lordship appreciates, between no wind and no swell.
The Commissioner:
Oh, yes.
The Attorney-General:
He does not say that no wind would be an abnormal condition.
The Commissioner:
No.
The Attorney-General:
What he says is no swell would be an abnormal condition.
The Commissioner:
It is one of the points, however, that he relies upon.
The Attorney-General:
Yes; "It is a flat calm, as a matter of fact." He repeated it. He said "a flat calm."
The Commissioner:
Yes, there are the two of them making the point.
The Attorney-General:
Yes. "I said 'Yes,' quite flat; there is no wind.'"
The Commissioner:
He makes the point the third time.
Mr. Laing:
I am very unwilling to intervene, my Lord, but -
The Commissioner:
I am doing this in your favour, Mr. Laing.
Mr. Laing:
I only wanted to point out that the Witness is evidently meaning a flat calm to be no wind. He is distinguishing between no swell and no wind.
The Attorney-General:
I will call attention later to what he has said modifying it. But it seems to me there is all the difference in the world between talking of a flat calm which is the expression that he uses throughout as indicating that not only is it a calm but quite a flat calm in the sense that there is no swell; because he says so directly.
The Commissioner:
I am advised that a sailor would not use the expression "flat calm" as meaning no swell.
The Attorney-General:
You will see what he says about it.
The Commissioner:
He repeated it "'He said a flat calm' I said 'Yes, quite flat; there is no wind.'"
The Attorney-General:
I said something about it was rather a pity the breeze had not kept up whilst we were going through the ice region. Of course my reason was obvious; he knew I meant the water ripples breaking on the base of the berg." That is the point. "(Q.) You said it was a pity there was not a breeze? - (A.) Yes, I said, 'It is a pity there is not a breeze,' and we went on to discuss the weather. He was then getting his eyesight, you know, and he said, 'Yes, it seems quite clear, and I said, 'Yes, it is perfectly clear.' It was a beautiful night, there was not a cloud in the sky. The sea was apparently smooth, and there was no wind, but at that time you could see the stars rising and setting with absolute distinctness." Then you get to the other point. I will read it - the other abnormal condition of the blue iceberg.
The Commissioner:
Yes, about the reflection of light.
The Attorney-General:
"We then discussed the indications of ice. I remember saying, 'In any case there will be a certain amount of reflected light from the bergs.' He said, 'Oh, yes, there will be a certain amount of reflected light.' I said, or he said - it was said between us - that even though the blue side of the berg was towards us, probably the outline, the white outline would give us sufficient warning, that we should be able to see it at a good distance, and, as far as we could see, we should be able to see it. Of course, it was just with regard to that possibility of the blue side being towards us, and that if it did happen to be turned with the purely blue side towards us, there would still be the white outline." That is at the top. Your Lordship has said you have read it and you have realised that this is gone into and discussed in question and answer in some detail.
The Commissioner:
Great detail.
The Attorney-General:
Yes. He explains the natural precautions; "We knew we were in the vicinity of ice," and he says, at Question 13622, in answer to my friend the Solicitor-General, "Then you both realised at the time did you, that since it was a flat calm" - that is the question and answer I wanted particularly to get before you - "it would be more difficult to see the ice? - (A.) As far as the case of the berg was concerned, yes, it would be more difficult; naturally you would not see the water breaking on it if there were no wind; and so you would not have that to look for."
Now, my Lord, those questions and answers to which I have referred make this, I submit, perfectly clear, that in Mr. Lightoller's view, when he is speaking of a flat calm and of the ripple round the base, what he means is, without analysing too closely the exact meaning of the words used by him, that he will not that night get the benefit of the ripple which breaks round the base of a berg. That is clear.
The Commissioner:
No doubt.
The Attorney-General:
Whether you put it as wind or whether you put it as the result of a swell it comes to the same thing. He knew he would not get that and that is what I rely upon, and I submit that destroys the point; and without going into it in any elaborate detail and without taking up the various pieces of evidence to which my friend referred, those answers of his destroy the case made that those were unusual conditions, because unusual conditions have no value as an excuse unless it means that they were so unusual that they did not know of them at the time.
The Commissioner:
The way I look at it is this; even if they were unusual conditions, even if they were abnormal, if he knew the fact it removes the value to the Officers of the abnormal conditions as an excuse.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, that is what I mean.
The Commissioner:
It destroys its value if they knew it.
The Attorney-General:
It does.
The Commissioner:
I am disposed to agree with you that whether he meant swell or whether he meant a motion on the sea distinguished from swell, in either case he pointed it out according to his own account (an apocryphal account), in his conversation with the Captain, and, therefore, the excuse was gone.
The Attorney-General:
It is a little difficult to deal with the view which is in your Lordship's mind about the conversation.
The Commissioner:
Well, I have got the view and I have had it for a long time. But there it is; there is the evidence.
The Attorney-General:
It is right to say this is it not - your Lordship is a better judge than I am from every point of view, and I was not here during the whole of the time when Lightoller was giving his evidence - that he did give it very well.
The Commissioner:
It is to be remembered that he told exactly or practically the same story in America.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, from the first. I think it is right to say with regard to Lightoller, is it not, that he gave his evidence very well.
The Commissioner:
He gave it remarkably well.
The Attorney-General:
Too well your Lordship thinks?
Continued >
