Senator SMITH.
You have already been sworn. You were the second officer, and are the ranking surviving officer, of the Titanic?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Yes, sir.
Senator SMITH.
My examination of you in New York went as far as I care to go at the present time, and I will see if my colleagues care to ask anything.
Senator Burton, do you desire to ask anything?
Senator BURTON.
No.
Senator SMITH.
Senator Bourne?
Senator BOURNE.
I would like to ask Mr. Lightoller a few questions. As I understand, you had 15 compartments, in effect, on the Titanic?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Yes, sir.
Senator BOURNE.
You had a false bottom, which gave top doors there to each compartment, that could be closed by electricity in 15 seconds?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Quite right.
Senator BOURNE.
The side doors had to be closed by hand, and you estimate they could be closed in about 20 seconds?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
The upper doors.
Senator BOURNE.
Providing the men were there. Your inference is that all those doors were closed in the compartments?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Yes. I am given to understand from passengers that every discipline was shown amongst the stewards. They all went to their watertight doors and closed them.
Senator BOURNE.
Taking the boiler room, each boiler room acts as a compartment by itself, does it not?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
It does.
Senator BOURNE.
You had a false bottom below the boiler room which was a compartment?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Exactly.
Senator BOURNE.
And a protection. Was there a bulkhead beside the boilers, between the boilers themselves and the skin of the ship?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
There was.
Senator BOURNE.
Could that be closed, so that if the outside should be pierced and the water come into the bulkheads, it would not come over and flood the boiler room?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
I do not think so. That I can not answer for certain.
Senator BOURNE.
Who would have that knowledge?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
An engineer.
Senator BOURNE.
And your impression is that there was an opening there so that it would flood the boiler room in case the skin of the ship were pierced?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
That is so.
Senator BOURNE.
Is it not customary with naval vessels, men-of-war, to have those bulkheads between the skin and boilers, so that there is absolute protection, and in case the skin is pierced, that they are watertight, and water does not get into the boiler room?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
It is a protection from shell fire.
Senator BOURNE.
Would it not be a protection also, in case the skin were pierced?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Providing the skin was pierced by a shell. It would prevent the water from entering into the boiler room; but it would not be sufficient protection against a ram.
Senator BOURNE.
Would it not be protection against an iceberg in case of a disaster of this nature?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
An iceberg, I should say, in that case would take the position of a ram. It might, or on the other hand it might not, afford sufficient protection.
Senator BOURNE.
The likelihood is that you would get better protection by having that bulkhead watertight, is it not?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Yes.
Senator BOURNE.
And would protect the boiler room to that extent?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Yes.
Senator BOURNE.
Taking the experience that you passed through, in your judgment as a navigator, what improvements could be made in the maritime laws or in the rules and regulations governing the operation of a ship?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
I could not answer that without serious consideration. I am not in a position, I have not been able to give the matter sufficient thought - to justly answer that question here. There is no doubt we might make some improvements, which shipbuilders are trying to do all the time, and the White Star, as far as I know them, in particular. We have instructions, particularly to the commander and officers. As far as our side of it is concerned - the officers on deck - every suggestion we have to offer is met with every consideration, and is deeply considered, as I have proof, by the captain, and anything that tends toward the improvement of the ship, or members of the ship, is immediately carried out.
Senator BOURNE.
Do you not think there is an opportunity to benefit by the recent experience, in the way of improvements, either in legislation or in the way of rules and regulations?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
No doubt.
Senator BOURNE.
But you yourself have come to no conclusions?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Not just now, sir.
Senator BOURNE.
Is it your opinion that a searchlight would be a benefit or a detriment on a ship?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
I should require practical experience with it before I could offer any opinion on that.
Senator BOURNE.
It would certainly be of benefit after a catastrophe, or in case of a collision, would it not?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Searchlights are beneficial; and, on the other and, they are detrimental in many instances.
Senator BOURNE.
They would be detrimental prior to the accident, possibly.
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Searchlights are detrimental in this manner: They are of every assistance to the people who are behind them, but those on whom the searchlight is shining might as well have their eyes closed; they are blinded. If we are going into a harbor, and, as frequently happens in the Harbor of Plymouth, a man-of-war and the shore stations may be having torpedo attack, in which case search-lights are being used to a very great extent, we find them so detrimental that a signal has been arranged between the Mercantile Marine and the Admiralty by which we can notify the Admiralty when we come in, that they may put out their searchlights. Let a searchlight shine on the bridge of a ship entering the port, and we are completely blinded, and can see nothing.
Senator BOURNE.
Then, in your opinion, it would be a detriment rather than a benefit to have legislation requiring ships in commerce to carry searchlights?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
No, sir; I say that it is detrimental to those on whom the light is shining, but beneficial to those who are behind the light.
Senator BOURNE.
In this case it would not have been detrimental to the iceberg, if it was an iceberg?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Certainly not.
Senator BOURNE.
It would have been beneficial to the Titanic and those on board, would it, in your judgment?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
I should judge so, offhand. But I should need to practice with it at nighttime myself before I could form any decided opinion.
Senator BOURNE.
The principal reliance is placed upon the man in the crow's nest, or the men in the crow's nest?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
We place no reliance on them.
Senator BOURNE.
What are they there for?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
They are there to keep a lookout; to assist you.
Senator BOURNE.
Then, why is no reliance placed upon them?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Because, speaking personally, I never rely on a lookout. I keep a lookout myself, and so does every other officer.
Senator BOURNE.
Then, it is merely to afford a dual opportunity of getting sight of things that you utilize the crow's nest and the men in it?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
We use the men in the crow's nest for keeping a lookout. Occasionally a man will see a light or a vessel first, particularly in daytime, when naturally we trust to them seeing. Especially all through the daytime lookout men are keeping a keen lookout, and will report a steamer long before she is in sight, apparently, by her smoke. In that instance the lookout might be very useful. In nighttime, particularly in channels where there are a great many lights, we may be watching one light, and there may be another light in our course, and the man in the crow's nest will strike, say, one bell. That signifies something on the port bow, and calls our attention to it. So that the ship can approach close to us without the bridge being notified, even though the officer has not himself already seen it. The White Star Co., I may say incidentally, is the only company in the world, so far as I know, that carries six lookout men. We carry men who do nothing else, night and day, from the commencement to the finish of the voyage, except keep a lookout. They are two hours on and four off.
Senator BOURNE.
Two hours on and four off?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Exactly.
Senator BOURNE.
And the glasses are used by the individual only after the naked eye has picked up the object?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Each man uses them as he wishes. Different men have different ideas of the glasses, and of using them. Some keep them glued to their eyes altogether. I consider that very detrimental.
Senator BOURNE.
That is all I care to ask.
Senator BURTON.
Would it not be worth while to carry searchlights on trans-Atlantic liners just for the sake of picking up ice a locality like this?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
It would be an advantage to carry a searchlight if it is going to be of any benefit at all. If it can be proved beneficial, it would be an advantage.
Senator BURTON.
Would it not be useful in detecting ice on a dark night?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
That I could not say without experience with it.
Senator BURTON.
What about the crew of the Titanic? How many were there in the crew?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
As far as I remember, 71 all told, officers and men, on deck. The crew - I am speaking of seamen now.
Senator BURTON.
Do you regard that as an adequate number?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
That I can not say.
Senator BURTON.
How large a crew would there be on the Majestic, for instance?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
We had, I think, 58.
Senator BURTON.
What is the tonnage of the Majestic?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Ten thousand gross.
Senator BURTON.
Were there any women left on the deck?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Of the Titanic?
Senator BURTON.
Yes.
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
On the port side on deck, I can say, as far as my own observations went, from my own endeavor and that of others to obtain women, there were none. I can give you the name of a man who will give testimony, who was working with me, one of our best men, a man I picked out especially to man the falls for lowering away.
He went from the port side to the starboard side of the deck, as I did, and after that, when she went under water forward, instead of taking to the water he walked aft the whole length of the boat deck previous to sliding down the aft fall on the port side, and in the whole length of the deck and in crossing the bridge he saw two women. They were standing amidships on the-bridge perfectly still. They did not seem to he endeavoring to get to one side or the other to see if there were any boats or not. The whole length of the boat deck, so far as he went, he did not see any women.
Senator BURTON.
Do you know what became of those two women?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
I do not.
Senator BURTON.
How many compartments were opened by this collision with the iceberg, in your opinion?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
I should judge the forepeak tank was pierced. My reason for saying that is that the lamp-trimmer's and storekeeper's room was on the starboard side there, and they were both turned in. They felt the shock. They turned out and had a look around under the forecastle head, and there seemed to be nothing doing, and they went back to bed. They were, I suppose, closer to the point of impact than anyone else in the ship.
Senator BURTON.
That is the very forward compartment, is it?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
I am speaking of these two men's room. After they had gone back to bed a few minutes, the junior came along and told these men, "You had better put your pants on." So they got up again. This time they went forward and the chief officer was there, and they heard a whistling sound. On locating this, they found it was the exhaust pipe from the forepeak tank; that is, the tank down in the bottom of the ship. They put their hands over this pipe and found the air was rushing out, proving that water was entering the forepeak. They looked in the storeroom and, they could see right down on the tank top, and it was dry proving that if she received any injury it was below the forepeak. Therefore, that leaves us, with the fore peak-full and the storerooms dry.
I judge No. 1, of which I have no proof, was pierced, and No. 2, and I should think No. 3.
Senator BURTON.
Do you think No. 4 was pierced?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
There is no No. 4. No. 4 is No. 6 stokehold. You next come to No. 6 stokehold.
Senator BURTON.
Was that pierced, do you think?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
No, sir; I do not.
Senator BURTON.
So the injury was confined, in your judgment, to the three compartments?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Yes.
Senator BURTON.
I understand you have some information in regard to the message to the Cedric, and in regard to some conversations with Mr. Ismay. Please state them both.
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Previous to having the conversation with Mr. Ismay in regard to any telegrams that were sent to our office in New York with reference to holding the Cedric the other three officers and myself had spoken about it casually, saying we knew the Cedric and we thought it a jolly good idea if we could get home with her if we were in time to catch her. We were very much disappointed at the delay through fog. We were saying all the time, "It is a great pity if will miss the Cedric. If we could only get home in time to get everybody on board the Cedric, we shall probably be able to keep the men together as much as possible." Otherwise, you understand, once the men get in New York, naturally these men are not going to hang around New York or hang around anywhere else. They want to get to sea to earn money to keep their wives and families, and they would ship off. You can not find a sailor but what will ship off at once if he gets the opportunity. They simply would stand this off as a loss or stand it off as a bad debt, and probably try to ship off somewhere. Its a case like this, where the men are brought into prominence, they are very frequently offered berths immediately. Certain of the steerage passengers were offered berths by the saloon passengers. They were offered berths to go and be servants, or whatever it was until they found employment.
Our crew would in all probability have done the same, and we would have lost a number of them, probably some very important witnesses. They would perhaps ship on some yacht, which very often they do. A great many of them, quartermasters especially, ship on gentlemen's yachts in New York, because they know they are thoroughly capable men. They are just as good men as they can obtain in the world, and there is great demand for them; much to our regret, because we lose them.
On having a conversation with Mr. Ismay he also mentioned about the Cedric and asked me my opinion about it, and I frankly stated that it was the best thing in the world to do if we could catch the Cedric.
Later on he remarked that owing to weather conditions it was very doubtful if we would catch the Cedric. I said, "Yes; it is doubtful. It will be a great pity if she sails without us." "Do you think it will be advisable to hold her up?" I said, "Most undoubtedly; the best thing in the world to hold her up."
A telegram was dispatched asking them to hold the Cedric until we got in, to which we received the reply that it was not advisable to hold the Cedric. He asked what I thought about it. I said, "I think we ought to hold her, and you ought to telegraph and insist on their holding her and preventing the crew getting around in New York." We discussed the pros and cons and deemed it advisable to keep the crew together as much as we could, so we could get home, and we might then be able to choose our important witnesses and let the remainder go to sea and earn money for themselves. So I believe the other telegram was sent.
I may say that at that time Mr. Ismay did not seem to me to be in a mental condition to finally decide anything. I tried my utmost to rouse Mr. Ismay, for he was obsessed with the idea, and kept repeating, that he ought to have gone down with the ship because he found that women had gone down. I told him there was no such reason; I told him a very great deal; I tried to get that idea out of his head, but he was taken with it; and I know the doctor tried, too; but we had difficulty in arousing Mr. Ismay, purely owing to that wholly and solely, that women had gone down in the boat and he had not.
You can call the doctor of the Carpathia, and he will verify that statement.
Senator BURTON.
Is that all you desire to say?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
That is all, sir.
Senator BURTON.
That is all I desire to ask.
Senator NEWLANDS.
I heard Mr. Lightoller testify in New York and I simply desire to ask one question.
You say a searchlight is not detrimental to those behind it?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
No, sir.
Senator BURTON.
But it is detrimental to those on whom it shines?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Yes.
Senator BURTON.
Then would you say a searchlight would or would not be desirable? How would the use of a searchlight be in any sense detrimental to a ship at sea?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
These gentlemen spoke about after we had left the ship, you understand, and a searchlight being used then. It was that time to which I had reference. If you had shone a searchlight on the boats as they were being lowered, or on the boats as they were being unhooked from the tackles in the water it would have been very detrimental to the men in the boat. They could not have see what they were doing. We are far better off in the dark, because anyone that shines a light on us blinds us.
Senator NEWLANDS.
In discerning objects at sea -
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. (interrupting)
In discerning objects at sea, for instance, I will give a case in point. If you were coming up on a schooner, you can not see her distinctly. She shows no light; around about Nantucket and in along Long Island, I mean. They may have a light burning, and it may be invisible, being screened by their sail or something like that. That ship may be standing right across your bows, and you may not be able to distinguish immediately which way she is heading, in the dusk or in the dark. If you had a searchlight then to put right straight on that ship, instantly you would be guided as to which way to put your helm.
As it is, if you can not show any light there is nothing to guide you; and you are fairly close to her, and you have to alter your helm, and give the ship you are in plenty of helm in case you should happen to be crossing her bows. Of course we always go around a vessel's stern when we can see her stern.
Senator NEWLANDS.
In that case the use of a searchlight would be beneficial, would it not?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
It would be beneficial if you could use it as quick as you can an ordinary lamp, by merely pressing a key. But you understand they would have to be very careful with them, they have to be kept covered up.
Senator NEWLANDS.
But in navigating, with a view of discerning objects that may be in the way or near the way of a ship's course, can you imagine that a searchlight would be at all detrimental to that ship?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
You must take into consideration that if anyone is going to have them, all are going to have them; and if you are in a crowded channel, like the English Channel, and another ship has the same idea you have, and you are flickering your searchlights around on each other, you will cause a great deal of difficulty. There would have to be legislation to prevent your using your searchlight in close waters. You could not use the searchlight anywhere where the shipping is crowded.
Senator NEWLANDS.
If two ships were approaching each other, each with a searchlight, you think the use of the searchlights might be a source of danger to each of them?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
I have no doubt of it; unless they were compelled - they would have to legislate and arrange it in some manner so that one ship would not blind the other.
Senator NEWLANDS.
That is all.
Senator SMITH.
You say you do not regard the lookout in the crow's nest as important?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Oh no; I did not say that, sir.
Senator SMITH.
What did you say?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
This gentleman (indicating the reporter) will read what I said.
Senator FLETCHER.
He said he did not rely on them.
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
I said I did not rely on them.
Senator FLETCHER.
That is what I understood him to say.
Senator SMITH.
Why are the eyes of the lookouts examined?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
To prove that they can see clearly and distinctly. They are there to offer us every assistance they can.
Senator SMITH.
Why are they furnished with a telephone and various bells, the prompt use of which is intended to advise the officers of obstacles in the way?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
They are there to assist us and to keep a lookout.
Senator SMITH.
Are there any other men who were employed on the Titanic, that you know of, or who are employed in the White Star Line, who receive fixed pay and certain percentage over?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Other than the lookouts?
Senator SMITH.
No; I did not ask that.
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
The lookouts receive so much per month, the same as the men, and then they get 5 shillings per voyage of what we call "lookout money".
Senator SMITH.
That is lookout money?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Not only that, but they got other unofficial benefits.
Senator SMITH.
Do any other officers or members of the crew receive that additional compensation?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Not on the same scale.
Senator SMITH.
No on the same scale? On any scale?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Yes; the quartermasters receive 5 shillings a month extra.
Senator SMITH.
They are the only officers that receive extra?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
They are not officers; they are petty officers.
Senator SMITH.
They are the only ones?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
The only ones, yes.
Senator SMITH.
Are experienced men usually selected for the lookouts?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Speaking for myself, I always select old lookout men that I know; and as a rule, the lookout men run perhaps a year in the crow's nest in one ship. For instance the men I had with me on the Titanic had been with me on the Oceanic for years, doing nothing but keeping a lookout. They have their other special duties at other times, as well.
Senator SMITH.
Do they get to be expert in detecting objects on the horizon?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
They do. They are very smart at it, indeed. There is one man here, who has been subpoenaed, who is the smartest man I know at it.
Senator SMITH.
What is his name?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Symons.
Senator SMITH.
He has been subpoenaed?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Yes, sir.
Senator SMITH.
Was he in the crow's nest the night of the disaster?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
He was in there after his watch came on. Up to that time he had not been on watch that night. He had been on watch in the afternoon.
Senator SMITH.
But not on the watch extending from 10 to 12 o'clock?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
No sir; Fleet and Lee were there then.
Senator SMITH.
As I understood you in your testimony in New York, your watch expired at 10 o'clock Sunday night?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
That is so.
Senator SMITH.
If I recollect correctly, you took charge of the loading of the lifeboats.
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
On the port side.
Senator SMITH.
On the port side.
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
The chief officer also loaded some of the boats on the port side. I may also say, in regard to the testimony in regard to Mr. Ismay, although I can not vouch for the source, yet it was given to me from a source such that I have every reason to believe its truth -
Senator SMITH.
Before or since this occurred?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Since.
){kind=link}
){kind=link}