British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 23
[Counsel Present]
WITNESS.
Sir Walter J. Howell - Chief of Marine Department - Board of Trade.
Testimony
The Attorney-General:
Your Lordship will remember that yesterday we had a discussion about the requirements of the German law for a vessel the size of the "Titanic." We have agreed upon the result of applying the German scale to a vessel of the size of the "Titanic," and upon the assumption that she had applied and received the exemption on the ground of efficient bulkheads, because there is the same Rule in Germany.
The Commissioner:
There is.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, just the same as ours. Half of what they call a supplementary accommodation is excused if the compartments are certified or passed as efficient. Therefore, it is exactly on the same footing as ours. The result of it will be this, that the cubic capacity of the boat accommodation to be provided would be 31,992 cubic feet. That is made up of the 21,328 which would have to be boating accommodation proper - that is to say, lifeboats and boats within the regulations, and the supplementary, which would be one-half which would be 10,664, which may consist of collapsibles, rafts and boats of other description, Making altogether 31,992. The 21,328 cubic capacity would require 34 boats, that is to say, there would have to be 34 boats carried in davits - I think, in davits, according to their rules. And there would be, besides that, an accommodation which it is not easy to put into figures, because it depends upon the particular kind of craft which is permissible for the supplementary accommodation; you may have collapsibles or rafts, and so forth. The effect of that is - I think I was right in what I told your Lordship yesterday - that it is clear that their demand is very much greater than the demands which we make, because the effect would be that you would have an accommodation altogether for 3,198 people.
The Commissioner:
And the boat is calculated to carry how many?
The Attorney-General:
Your Lordship means the 34 boats?
The Commissioner:
No, I mean how many is the ship supposed to carry, or is capable of carrying, crew and passengers?
The Attorney-General:
I do not think I have that. Of course, I have it for the "Titanic."
The Commissioner:
Oh, yes.
The Attorney-General:
I cannot answer the question.
The Commissioner:
I will hand you down this.
The Attorney-General:
I think I know what your Lordship is referring to.
The Commissioner:
It was sent to me this morning. (Handing a paper to the Attorney-General.)
The Attorney-General:
Yes, and it was sent to me. It is rather difficult to tell. You cannot tell by this. The question is answered to some extent by this, that the German requirements take no note of the number of passengers. Your Lordship had that in evidence yesterday.
The Commissioner:
Do you mean to say that if there were a cargo boat of the size of one of these boats, it would require the same number?
The Attorney-General:
No, that was not the point at all. We are dealing with passenger steamers and emigrant steamers. The point I am making is with reference to the evidence we had yesterday, that their standard is tonnage and not number of persons carried. That is the point I am on.
The Commissioner:
But so ours is.
The Attorney-General:
I agree. That is the point we are making upon it.
The Commissioner:
The basis is tonnage in both cases.
The Attorney-General:
They have the same Rule as we have. That reference to cargo boats would introduce another rule which the Germans have.
The Commissioner:
The observation was only made because I did not understand.
The Attorney-General:
She need never carry more boats than are necessary to carry all the persons on board. As your Lordship heard, in certain cases we have enough to carry all persons on board on each side. But, dealing with this particular question, as applied to steamers of what I may call the first class, requiring the most extensive and careful survey, passenger and emigrant ships, the result is that the boating accommodation required by the German law would be 34 lifeboats, and also a number of boats of the capacity of this 10,000 odd which would carry 3,198 people. So far as I can tell from the Note I have of the German requirements, I do not know that any difference would be made, except, of course, this, that according to the German law and German requirements a vessel need never carry more boats than are required for all the passengers. Supposing she had more passengers and crew than 3,198, she still would only be required to carry the boat accommodation with a cubic capacity which I have described.
The Commissioner:
The figures in that newspaper that I handed to you seem to have been carefully collected. I do not know whether they are accurate, but if they are accurate the German boats do not carry sufficient lifeboat accommodation to provide for all the lives in the boats.
The Attorney-General:
They do not.
The Commissioner:
But they provide considerably more than we do.
The Attorney-General:
That is right; I think it comes approximately to this. I am only giving now a rough average from looking at it. It would work out at 25 percent unprovided for, according to these figures we have before us, in the German boats, and according to the requirements of a vessel like the "Titanic," with the number of passengers carried, it would be 66 percent unprovided for.
The Commissioner:
The "Titanic" carried 2,208 souls, passengers and crew.
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
Have you made any calculation to see what the German law would require in the case of a ship of that size, carrying that number of people.
The Attorney-General:
No, but we can. It is quite simple.
The Commissioner:
Because it is suggested to me - I do not know whether it is right - that if you make that calculation you will find that the "Titanic" was carrying as much in the way of lifeboats as the German law would require.
The Attorney-General:
That I am sure was not so. That is quite simple.
The Commissioner:
I am wrong, Mr. Attorney.
The Attorney-General:
There is a point in it, because in estimating with regard to the "Titanic," at any rate for the purpose of this voyage, it not being necessary, according to German law, to carry more boats than would be required to carry all on board, what you have to consider is not the full complement on the "Titanic," but what she actually did carry in passengers and crew. So that, whatever the tonnage is, she would never, according to German law, be required to carry boats to accommodate more than 2,208 persons. It might be that she might carry a good many more, but she was not carrying them, and one has to consider that in making the comparison in the case of the "Titanic" as she sailed.
The Commissioner:
What was suggested to me and what I ought to have put to you, was that if this boat with only 2,200 people on board had been provided with lifeboats in accordance with German requirements, there would have been sufficient lifeboat accommodation on the "Titanic" to carry everybody on board.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, assuming of course that she was provided with boats sufficient to carry the full complement of passengers and crew that she could carry.
The Commissioner:
That is it.
The Attorney-General:
According to German law.
The Commissioner:
I think I put it accurately: If she had had lifeboats in accordance with the German requirements it would have so happened that she would have had sufficient lifeboats on board to accommodate all the people on board, and a good many more. But still it does not do away with the point that even, according to German requirements, the German steamers do not carry sufficient lifeboats to accommodate all that may be carried on the steamer.
The Attorney-General:
Not only not sufficient lifeboats but not necessarily sufficient boat accommodation.
The Commissioner:
When I say "lifeboats" I mean collapsibles and rafts as well.
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
And that newspaper which I handed down to you shows that, and oddly enough - I do not know why it should be - a shortage of accommodation in different boats. I think it is the Norddeutscher Lloyd or the Hamburg Amerika - I do not know which. The percentage of the shortage of boats varies in different boats.
The Attorney-General:
It would depend on the tonnage, would it not?
The Commissioner:
Yes. In one boat there is a short accommodation to the extent of, I think, 709; in another boat the shortage accommodation is much less.
Mr. Maurice Hill:
Is your Lordship talking of the "President" boats?
The Attorney-General:
No.
The Commissioner:
I am not sure that it is not the "President" boats.
The Attorney-General:
I do not think so. Neither of the "President" boats is in this.
The Commissioner:
I thought it was.
The Attorney-General:
No, they are quite different.
The Commissioner:
I am not sure that it is not sufficient for me to be able to note the fact that if the "Titanic" had been sailing under German law she would have carried much more boat accommodation than, in fact, she did.
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
That is what I wanted, because there was a suggestion that it would be inconvenient to put additional boats upon the boat deck, and there was a suggestion, too, that it might tend to make the ship tender.
The Attorney-General:
Your Lordship will note - it is not necessary to discuss it; I think I understand how the misapprehension arose - the calculations of percentages which, I was questioning yesterday with regard to the two "President" boats as compared with the "Titanic" must be wrong. It is based upon some misapprehension. It seems to me they lead to quite different conclusions.
The Commissioner:
That is a matter of argument. There seems to be no dispute between you that if this boat had been sailing under the German flag she would have carried a great deal more boat accommodation than she did.
The Attorney-General:
The figures I have given, your Lordship, are agreed figures. They are based upon Mr. Wilding's calculations.
Mr. Maurice Hill:
That is right, My Lord. If you take a ship of the size of the "Titanic," according to the German law, it will work out in the figures which the Attorney-General has given. I cannot tell your Lordship what the percentage of boat accommodation to people who could be carried on board would be in such a case without knowing how many people under the German law could be carried on board a ship of that size. Therefore, I cannot give you that percentage. The figures which I gave you of percentages were based upon the figures on page 538 of the Note of the two "President" boats, the two Hamburg Amerika boats, and those percentages are accurate. And according to Mr. Wilding's evidence they are based upon figures which are according to German law, and according to German law the "President Lincoln" was entitled to carry 4,108 persons and complied with the law in giving boating accommodation for 1,465 persons; that is, for 35.5 percent of the number which she was entitled to carry. The "President Grant" in the same way was entitled to carry 3,991 persons, and gave boating accommodation, complying with the law, for 1,516 persons. That is for 37.9 percent. The tonnage of these two ships was a little over 18,000 tons. Your Lordship will notice that in each case the ship was entitled to carry a larger number of persons than the "Titanic" by English law was entitled to carry. How many persons the "Titanic" by German law would have been entitled to carry I cannot say.
The Commissioner:
I remember we had that evidence. That must mean that the passengers in some way or another are packed close together.
Mr. Maurice Hill:
I am told that if the "Titanic" had been fitted up entirely for third class she might have carried 10,000 or 12,000; she had room for them.
The Commissioner:
She had cubic space for them?
Mr. Maurice Hill:
Yes.
The Attorney-General:
I agree with what my friend has said with regard to the "President Lincoln" and the "President Grant." That is not the point on which I was dissenting from the calculation. I agree those were substantially accurate. The slight variation is not worth mentioning. One has to bear in mind always, and it is brought out by reference to the "President Lincoln" and the "President Grant," that the German law equally does what we have done - that is, base its demands for boats upon tonnage, and not upon the number of souls carried, and in those cases it pans out rather differently. They carried a very large number of passengers, Much more than the "Titanic" would carry, and yet, nevertheless, would have had to find many less boats than the "Titanic" according to the German law. That is the point of it.
The Commissioner:
Yes, that is the point, and it is an important point.
The Attorney-General:
Undoubtedly.
The Commissioner:
It was stated of the "Titanic" that it provided large spaces for what has been called luxury, adding of course to the tonnage of the vessel. If the lifeboat accommodation were calculated with reference to that tonnage which is not occupied by passengers in the sense of carrying passengers, why of course it makes the provision of boats very much larger than it would otherwise be.
The Attorney-General:
Certainly.
The Commissioner:
So that in that sense the provision of these large spaces for what are called luxury - racquet Courts and swimming baths and suchlike things - would tend to increase the lifeboat accommodation, although they tend to decrease the number of persons carried.
The Attorney-General:
That is so.
WITNESS.
Sir Alfred Chalmers - Professional Member - Marine Department - Board of Trade - Retired.
Testimony
The Commissioner:
Do you think you can get this information, Sir John? I do not think a Witness can do it. (Handing a paper to the Solicitor-General.) I want also particulars of the track that has been settled by the different Steamship Companies since this disaster.
The Solicitor-General:
With regard to that matter, My Lord, possibly your Lordship would like to have it indicated graphically upon a chart?
The Commissioner:
Certainly. What I am advised it would be important for us to know is exactly where the turning point is.
The Solicitor-General:
Yes, the angle; the corner, as they call it. I think my friends have charts which show it.
Mr. Laing:
Yes, My Lord, we have it.
The Solicitor-General:
With regard to these two questions, I think one of them we shall be able to supply your Lordship with, and I will enquire as regards the other. Sir Ellis Cunliffe puts into my hands now a list of all passenger steamships in the British Mercantile marine of 10,000 tons and upwards, showing the gross tonnage, year when built, and the crew, and boat equipment, and out of that we can pick what your Lordship needs. (Handing same to the Commissioner.) I am not quite certain whether the document your Lordship now has before you gives the year in which the ship is built?
The Commissioner:
Yes.
The Solicitor-General:
Then, My Lord, we can pick out those which are since 1894, and that, I think, would be the answer to the question put.
The Commissioner:
The question relates from 1891.
The Solicitor-General:
What your Lordship handed to me is from 1894.
The Commissioner:
Is it?
The Solicitor-General:
Yes, the question your Lordship handed down was as to the numbers and tonnage of all ships over 10,000 built from 1894 onwards.
The Commissioner:
Those will be in this list?
The Solicitor-General:
They must be included in it.
The Commissioner:
Because I see you go back as far as 1893, at any rate.
The Solicitor-General:
It will include them. I think that purports to be a list of all British ships in existence over 10,000 tons.
The Commissioner:
It is a list of passenger steamships in the British Mercantile marine of 10,000 tons and upwards for which a passenger certificate is granted by the Board of Trade, and their boat equipment. We can pick out of this the information we want.
The Solicitor-General:
If I can have it back I will have it done, but I wanted to see that it is the sort of information you wish.
The Commissioner:
It is.
The Solicitor-General:
Then I will have that done, and I will ask a question upon the other point. As regards this other question, as I follow it, it is directed to ascertain how many vessels have sought to take advantage of the reduction in the number of boats on the ground that their watertight compartments justify it. I think that is the point.
The Commissioner:
This question is not asked with reference to the number of boats carried, but it is to ascertain how many ships have the bulkheads divided to meet the bulkhead Report of 1891.
The Solicitor-General:
I do not know whether we can tell your Lordship that. Of course we could do this: we could let your Lordship know how many ships have come to the Board of Trade and have said, "True it is that your regulations require that we should carry such and such a number of boats, but we seek to take advantage of your provision that if we are satisfactorily divided into watertight compartments we may have fewer."
The Commissioner:
I thought we had that already in evidence.
The Solicitor-General:
Somebody has mentioned it, I think.
The Commissioner:
Was not it said that it averaged about four a year.
The Solicitor-General:
I have heard some general statement of the sort, and I think one of the witnesses we are calling will be able to tell you, but that is not the same thing.
The Commissioner:
No.
The Solicitor-General:
Because one refers to an application to the Board of Trade, and the other refers to a matter of fact.
The Commissioner:
Yes, one refers to Rule 12 in one of these small books.
The Solicitor-General:
In the Life-saving Appliances Rules. It is the last Rule before one comes to the schedule.
The Commissioner:
Yes, and we had evidence about that; I do not know who it was gave it.
Mr. Laing:
Sir Walter Howell, I think; I will find the passage.
The Solicitor-General:
I am very much afraid we cannot give the other information, because necessarily that is not a matter which is brought specifically to the Board of Trade's notice, unless an application is made.
WITNESS.
Alfred Young - Professional Member - Marine Department - Board of Trade.
Testimony
(Adjourned to tomorrow, at 10.30 o’clock.)
