British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 28
Final Arguments, cont.
The Attorney-General:
I am not going to ask Mr. Turnbull anything, but the two documents which have been referred to and handed in, the one, the corrected procès-verbal , and the other, received and sent messages, are taken in. I need not formally put them to Mr. Turnbull?
The Commissioner:
No. Are you going to begin your address, Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Clement Edwards:
No, my Lord. I thought your Lordship would like to know how the matter stands in relation to what your Lordship intimated on Friday. The position is this: that in the case of my friend, Mr. Pringle, appearing for the shipwrights, in the case of Mr. Cotter, appearing for the National Union of Stewards, and Mr. Lewis, appearing for the British Seafarers' Union, they have acceded to your Lordship's suggestion, and I shall represent them in making my speech.
The Commissioner:
That is very convenient.
Mr. Clement Edwards:
With regard to the Officers represented by Mr. Holmes, they are quite anxious, I understand, that he should address you, and, with your Lordship's permission, he will do that before I address your Lordship, and also, with your Lordship's permission, Mr. Harbinson will address you before I address you.
The Commissioner:
Very well.
Mr. Clement Edwards:
Your Lordship recognises better than anyone that in this Enquiry there is a huge mass of evidence, and if the case were an ordinary one where there is a responsibility placed upon individual Counsel to draw your Lordship's attention to the effect of the evidence, it would involve, if I may say so in my own case, taking up quite a considerable time, but inasmuch as the learned Attorney-General must, in the discharge of his duty to all concerned, point quite in detail to the effect of the evidence on the respective points, I suggest that there will be no need for me, except, perhaps, in the case of the Board of Trade, to go at all into detail with regard to the evidence, but to point out broadly to your Lordship what I deem to be the effect of the evidence on the respective points. It is a difference between two hours and two days, and I thought your Lordship would much prefer the two hours.
The Commissioner:
I am always delighted to hear you, and, though it may seem inconsistent, I prefer the two hours.
The Attorney-General:
I hope the same observations will apply to me. It must not be assumed that I am going to take up days by referring in detail to the evidence, except where it is necessary.
The Commissioner:
Who am I to hear first, you, Mr. Scanlan?
Mr. Scanlan:
I understand so, my Lord.
The Attorney-General:
There is one matter Sir Ellis calls attention to which, perhaps, for formality's sake we had better put right. Under the Rules to which I called attention in opening the case, when the examination of Witnesses has been concluded, the Board of Trade shall state in open Court the question in reference to the casualty and the conduct of Officers or other persons connected therewith upon which the opinion of the Court is desired. What I want to call attention to is this: That if there is any other question which any of my learned friends would desire submitted which is not included in the questions which I have submitted, as amended, at the end of the evidence, I shall be very glad to consider any such question and determine whether or not I would ask your Lordship to consider it. So far as I gathered during the course of the case, and from the questions, of which my learned friends have had copies, they do cover all the ground upon which we are engaged, and I am not asked to put any other questions to your Lordship than those already before you. I understand that is so.
Mr. Scanlan:
My Lord, at the outset, as this is the first opportunity that I have of addressing you, I desire, on behalf of my clients and myself, to express our sympathy with the relatives of those who were lost in this dreadful catastrophe, the circumstances of which have been brought so vividly back to us by the admirable evidence of Captain Rostron today.
I should like also to say that we feel that the greatest scope and indulgence has been given to us in putting the views of our Union before your Lordship, and so far as the conduct of the case by the learned Attorney-General is concerned, I may be permitted to express my indebtedness to him for calling a certain number of Witnesses whose names and the nature of whose evidence I had an opportunity of submitting to him.
My Lord, there are portions of this case with which I feel it is quite unnecessary for me to deal. In the whole twenty-six Questions, as they are set down by the learned Attorney-General, there may be found three leading divisions. There are three considerations of safety which apply to every ship that goes to sea. The first is the seaworthiness of the ship; the second is the skill in seamanship and in navigation; and the third is the provision for the saving of life, which may be taken as the last resort. As to the construction of the "Titanic," saving, of course, what I shall have to say to your Lordship as to her boat equipment and appliances for life-saving, I do not think it is necessary for me to deal with this aspect of the case, because I feel I am justified, subject to what has been brought out in the evidence and what may be submitted to your Lordship, to proceed on the assumption that this ship was in a perfectly seaworthy condition, and that what befell it was due not to the condition of the ship, but to the seamanship and skill, or want of seamanship and skill, and the want of proper directions as to her navigation.
My Lord, it is important to consider Question 24 and Questions 10 and 13. Question 24 is: "What was the cause of the loss of the 'Titanic,' and of the loss of life which thereby ensued or occurred?" Question 10 is: "If at the time referred to in the last preceding Question, or later, the 'Titanic' was warned of, or had reason to suppose it would encounter ice, at what time might she have reasonably expected to have encountered it? Was a good and proper look-out for ice kept on board? Were any, and, if so, what, directions given to vary the speed? If so, were they carried out?" And Question 13 is: "Was ice seen and reported by anybody on board the 'Titanic' before the casualty occurred? If so, what measures were taken by the Officer on watch to avoid it; were they proper measures and were they promptly taken?" These, my Lord, are three very important questions which I think go to the root of the first general consideration to which I am addressing myself, and that is the consideration as to seamanship and navigation.
Of course, it is of the very utmost importance to consider at the outset what were the conditions on the night of the 14th of April, when this catastrophe occurred. Here I have to present to your Lordship a view of the disaster which will at once, I doubt not, lead me into controversy with some of my learned friends. I am to submit to your Lordship on the evidence that there was in fact a haze on the night of the 14th of April, and that this haze prevented the look-out men and the Officer on watch from seeing the iceberg in time to have the course of the ship altered, so as to avoid the collision. I would like to refer your Lordship to two remarks which your Lordship made in the course of the evidence on this matter. At page 410, on the question of haze, your Lordship said, while the Attorney-General was asking questions of Fleet, one of the look-out men: "Yes, I will tell you at once. My impression is this, that the man was trying to make an excuse for not seeing the iceberg, and he thought he could make it out by creating a thick haze." That referred to one of them. Then at page 413, whilst Fleet is under examination still, your Lordship said: "He was asked by the Attorney-General, and he told us that he could not" - that is, see the iceberg - "and as I myself have very grave doubts about there being a haze at all, I can understand his having a difficulty in saying how long before the collision it was that he saw it." On this part of the case let me direct attention to the watches of the look-out men. The first watch was of Hogg and Evans from 6 to 8. Then came the watch of Jewell and Symons from 8 to 10. Then the watch of Fleet and Lee from 10 to 12. So far as the first watch, from 6 to 8, is concerned, there is no question of a haze. The evidence as to haze was first of all brought out when the men on the second watch were giving evidence to your Lordship. In the second watch, of the two men Jewell and Symons, Jewell has been asked no question whatever as to a haze, but the Witness Symons was asked a question on this by my learned friend Mr. Laing. Then we came to the third watch, and this is, of course, the all important critical time - from 10 to 12 - and we have it on the evidence, both of Fleet, and Lee, that there was a haze. This is not the whole of the evidence on the question of haze, but it exhausts all the look-out men to whom any questions were put as to whether or not there was a haze. Perhaps your Lordship will take a reference to the particular parts of the evidence. The evidence of Symons will be found on page 268, and he states at Question 11983, in answer to Mr. Laing, that there was a haze. Mr. Laing asked: "While you were on the look-out, up to 10 o'clock, what sort of a night was it? - (A.) Pretty clear, Sir, a fine night, rather hazy; if anything a little hazy on the horizon, but nothing to speak of. (Q.) Would you describe it as a very clear night? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) With stars? - (A.) Yes." Then the evidence of Lee is at page 72. He is one of the men on the look-out when this collision occurred. At Question 2401 he is asked by the Attorney-General: "What sort of a night was it? - (A.) A clear, starry night overhead, but at the time of the accident there was a haze right ahead. (Q.) At the time of the accident a haze right ahead? - (A.) A haze right ahead - in fact, it was extending more or less round the horizon. There was no moon. (Q.) And no wind? - (A.) And no wind whatever, barring what the ship made herself." And he described the conditions: "(Q.) Quite a calm sea? - (A.) Quite a calm sea. (Q.) Was it cold? - (A.) Very, freezing." Then Question 2408: "Did you notice this haze which you said extended on the horizon when you first came on the look-out, or did it come later? - (A.) It was not so distinct then - not to be noticed. You did not really notice it then - not on going on watch, but we had all our work cut out to pierce through it just after we started. My mate happened to pass the remark to me. He said, 'Well, if we can see through that we will be lucky.' That was when we began to notice there was a haze on the water. There was nothing in sight." Then there is the evidence of Fleet, at page 410, Question 17248. He is being examined by Mr. Attorney, and is asked: "Could you clearly see the horizon? - (A.) The first part of the watch we could. (Q.) The first part of the watch you could? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) After the first part of the watch what was the change, if any? - (A.) A sort of slight haze. (Q.) A slight haze? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Was the haze on the waterline? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) It prevented you from seeing the horizon clearly? - (A.) It was nothing to talk about. (Q.) It was nothing much apparently? - (A.) No. (Q.) Was this haze ahead of you? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Was it only ahead, did you notice? - (A.) Well, it was only about 2 points on each side." He is asked further questions about it.
The Commissioner:
There is Question 17270: "You did not say anything about it to the bridge? - (A.) No."
Mr. Scanlan:
He is asked a further Question, 17321, I think, by the Attorney-General, at page 411.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Question 17273 I think is important.
Mr. Scanlan:
Yes: "I understand you to say that whatever it was it made no difference to the look-out? - (A.) Yes, my Lord." I will come to that again. On page 411, he is asked at Question 17321: "I think then Hogg and Evans relieved you. Now, will you tell me, supposing there had been a haze, would it be your duty to report it at all to the bridge? - (A.) I have never reported haze yet." I think, my Lord, it is fair to observe at this point that there has not been a suggestion from any Captain, or any Officer, that a look-out man has a duty to report haze. I made a suggestion to the first Witness who mentioned haze as to whether or not he had reported it, and I think he looked at the question as being somewhat childish; it seemed so obvious to him, as it did to everybody else, that the Officers on the bridge had at least as good an opportunity of determining for themselves whether or not there was a haze as the look-out men. The evidence of the Witness, Alfred Shiers, I consider most important on this point.
The Commissioner:
Did this Witness contradict the evidence of the first man?
The Attorney-General:
There is Question 17271, on page 410.
Mr. Scanlan:
That question is: "I think it is necessary to direct your Lordship's attention to Question 2408, at page 73 of Lee's evidence. I have asked him his story in detail, but I think it is necessary to put it to him now. I will read it. (To the Witness.) Just listen to this, Fleet. This is a question put to your mate, and I will read you his answer, 'Did you notice this haze which you said extended on the horizon when you first came on the look-out, or did it come later? - (A.) It was not so distinct then - not to be noticed. You did not really notice it then? - Not on going on watch, but we had all our work cut out to pierce through it just after we started. My mate' - that is you - 'happened to pass the remark to me. He said, "Well, if we can see through that we will be lucky." That was when we began to notice there was a haze on the water. There was nothing in sight." - (A.) Well, I never said that. (Q.) You never said it? - (A.) No." On the question of haze he is examined somewhat further when he is being examined by myself at page 413, Question 17392: "I think you said when you were being examined that you said to your mate Lee that there was a slight haze coming? - (A.) Yes.(Q.) I want to make this perfectly clear. Is it your evidence that there was a haze that night? - (A.) No, there was not. I said there was a slight haze. (Q.) Could you recall now how long you had observed the haze before - (The Commissioner.) He told us once that he could not. (Mr. Scanlan.) He was asked, I think, how long after he came on the watch. (The Commissioner.) He was asked by the Attorney-General, and he told us that he could not; and as I myself have very grave doubts about there being a haze at all, I can understand his having a difficulty in saying how long before the collision it was that he saw it." Then your Lordship is referred to the evidence of other Witnesses. Then at Question 17395 I quoted some evidence: "Would you describe it as a very clear night? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) With stars? - (A.) Yes"; and asked: "Do you agree with this description of the night - 'fine night, rather hazy; if anything a little hazy on the horizon.' (To the Witness.) Not when I went on the look-out; it was not hazy."
The Commissioner:
But it occurs in Question 17394: "Pretty clear, Sir, a fine night, rather hazy; if anything a little hazy on the horizon, but nothing to speak of."
Mr. Scanlan:
Yes. Then the next Question [17395] is "(Mr. Scanlan.) 'Would you describe it as a very clear night? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) With stars? - (A.) Yes.' Do you agree with this description of the night - 'fine night, rather hazy; if anything a little hazy on the horizon?' (The Witness.) Not when I went on the look-out; it was not hazy. (Q.) But when the haze did come on was it like that? - (A.) A slight haze. (Q.) And did it extend right round the horizon? - (A.) No. (Q.) It did not extend all round? - (A.) No. (Q.) Was it right in front of you? - (A.) Right in front. (The Commissioner.) I understand you to say two points on each bow. - (A.) Two points on each bow; that is in front." Then he is asked a question about binoculars, which I need not trouble your Lordship with. Then will your Lordship look at the evidence of Alfred Shiers, at page 111, he was a fireman on the "Titanic," and is being cross-examined by Mr. Aspinall. He was not on watch at the time the collision occurred, and the effect of his evidence - I do not wish to read it all - is that he left his quarters and came up on deck almost immediately after the collision occurred, and he is one of the two or three people who have given evidence who have been able to say that they saw the actual berg after the collision occurred. The evidence he gives as to the haze is at Question 4700, on page 113. He describes how he went on to the forewell deck and looked aft on the starboard side, and he describes the berg, and he is asked, at Question 4699: "Could you get a good view of it from where you were standing? - (A.) No, only dim." Then Question 4700: "Was there a haze at the time; was the air clear, or was there a haze? - (A.) It was hazy. When I saw that berg it was hazy. The berg was in a haze." It might appear that he was being led at that time - that was part of my examination - but I think if your Lordship reads his evidence in the second column on page 111, it will be seen that what he said in his first examination by Mr. Aspinall is quite consistent with this: [4534] "How soon after you felt the striking of the iceberg did you see it away on your quarter? - (A.) About four or five minutes. (Q.) Tell me what you did, that will give me an idea. Did you get up at once? - (A.) Yes, I was reading in my bunk at the time. (Q.) You got up at once? - (A.) I went up on the forecastle. (Q.) Did you run up? - (A.) I walked up; our forecastle is only outside the companion ladder. (Q.) Did you see the berg then? - (A.) No, not then. (Q.) What did you do before you saw it? - (A.) Looked towards the window underneath the forecastle head to see if there was anything there. (Q.) That took a short time, I suppose? - (A.) It is only just a walk round from our room. (Q.) What did you do next? - (A.) Came out on the deck; on the starboard side of the deck. (Q.) Was it then you saw the berg? - (A.) I saw the ice then, and then the berg when I looked over the side. (Q.) And then the berg was away on the starboard quarter? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) About how far off? - (A.) I could not say; it was very dim then; I could just see it. (Q.) It was a dark night? - (A.) Yes, a starry night. (Q.) Starry, but dark. When you saw the berg could you judge whether your ship was stopped or going ahead? - (A.) When I looked over the side there was a slight way on her; she was moving, but not much." It is of some importance in this connection to remember that according to all the evidence, the "Titanic" must have proceeded a very, very short distance after the collision with the iceberg.
This, my Lord, is all the positive evidence as to the existence of a haze that night; but I think the evidence is corroborated by Mr. Lightoller, and I would direct attention to his evidence at page 305. At Question 13571 he is asked, "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." Then Question 13575 on the same page: "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," is his answer. Then at page 306, Question 13606 he mentions about a drop in the temperature. Then Question 13607: "Well, it was now nine o'clock, and you had worked out in your head that you would probably get the 49 degrees meridian by half-past nine? - (A.) Just let me correct that. It must have been a few minutes before nine, because I remember the Commander came on the bridge at five minutes to nine, and I told him then that I had already sent word round, so it was perhaps ten minutes or a quarter to nine, as a matter of minutes. (Q.) Then that is a drop of 10 degrees in less than two hours? - (A.) Slightly less." Then his conversation with the Captain is given, and he is asked at Question 13612: "Is that all that took place? - (A.) No, my Lord. We had a conversation with regard to the weather. (Q.) But had you no conversation with regard to ice? - (A.) Well, I was coming to that, my Lord." I think I had better read on further: "(The Solicitor-General.) Had not you better tell us as accurately as you can what passed between him and you when he came on the bridge at five minutes to nine? - (A.) I will. (Q.) If you please? - (A.) 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. In fact,' I said, 'it is only 1 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.' We then commenced to speak about the weather. He said, 'There is not much wind.' I said, 'No, it is a flat calm, as a matter of fact.' He repeated it; he said, 'A flat calm.' I said, 'Yes, quite flat; there is no wind.' 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. (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."
The Commissioner:
"Rising and setting with absolute distinctness."
Mr. Scanlan:
Yes, with absolute distinctness. Then the next question [13617] is: "On the horizon? - (A.) On the horizon. 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; blue 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." Then will your Lordship look at Question 13643, at page 307? He was asked if it came at all hazy what were they to do. I do not know whether it would be as well to direct your Lordship's attention to question 13635 - it is all on the same context, and if I only read those other questions it may not be quite clear.
The Attorney-General:
They must be read at some time.
Mr. Scanlan:
Yes, Question 13635 is: "The Captain left you about twenty or twenty-five past nine, you say. Did he say where he was going to, or where he had been, and so on? - (A.) Yes. The Captain said: 'If it becomes at all doubtful' - I think those are his words - 'If it becomes at all doubtful let me know at once; I will be just inside.' (The Commissioner.) If what becomes doubtful? - (A.) The general conditions, my Lord, I suppose he would mean - if I were at all doubtful about the distance I could see, principally. (Q.) You were relying at this time exclusively upon the look-out; you were not taking any measures to reduce the speed? - (A.) None, my Lord. (Q.) And therefore you were relying for safety entirely on the look-out? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Now tell me again what this observation of the Captain meant, because I do not understand it? - (A.) With regard to the word 'doubtful'? (Q.) Yes; what did he mean? - (A.) It is rather difficult to define. It means to say if I had any doubt at all in my mind. (Q.) What about? - (A.) About the weather, about the distance I could see - principally those two conditions it would refer to. If there were the slightest degree of haze to arise, the slightest haze whatever, if that were to any degree noticeable, to immediately notify him. (The Solicitor-General.) I will take what you have just said. You said if the slightest degree of haze was to arise - that would be what was meant - you were to notify him? - (A.) Immediately; yes. (Q.) And then did you understand, and do you represent, that if the slightest degree of haze arose it would at once become dangerous? - (A.) Well, it would render it more difficult to see the ice, though not necessarily dangerous. If we were coming on a large berg there might be a haze, as there frequently is in that position, where warm and cold streams are intermixing. You will very frequently get a little low lying haze, smoke we call it, lying on the water perhaps a couple of feet." I wish to emphasise this as indicating the possibility that there might be a local haze in the vicinity of this iceberg which the ship struck produced on account of such conditions as a variance between the temperature of the berg and the temperature of the water, or between the temperature of the air and the temperature of the water. At all events it was a possibility contemplated by Mr. Lightoller, and doubtless also by Captain Smith.
The Commissioner:
What point are you making?
Mr. Scanlan:
I am making the point that this was a hazy night.
The Commissioner:
This evidence does not show that it was a hazy night. This evidence shows that there is sometimes a slight haze round the bottom of a berg to the height of about two feet.
Mr. Scanlan:
Yes. I think this evidence is important corroboration of the evidence of the four persons who state that there was a haze.
The Commissioner:
I am asking what point you are making. Do you suggest that the haze was of such a character that it was necessary to alter the navigation of the ship on account of the haze.
Mr. Scanlan:
I do, certainly.
The Commissioner:
This evidence you are reading now would not bear that out at all.
Mr. Scanlan:
I thought it was only fair I should read those questions. This branch of the case is, I think, the only one in which I find it desirable to refer your Lordship to particular parts of the evidence and the answers of Witnesses.
The Commissioner:
What time was Mr. Lightoller speaking of?
Mr. Scanlan:
He was speaking of the time between 8 and 10 - just up to 10 o'clock. The importance of what he says in this last answer of his about a haze arising locally, I think I should impress upon your Lordship, because he contemplated as a possibility that they might find themselves in a local haze - in a haze produced by an iceberg. At Question 13679, on page 308, he is asked: "Were the conditions of the weather such that a haze might arise locally in one particular part of the field in front of you? - (A.) Then I should have seen it. (Q.) You thought that might be so, and you were looking out? - (A.) It could possibly have been so."
Continued >
