British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 29
Final Arguments, cont.
Mr. Edwards:
That brings me to the question upon which that distinction, if there be a distinction drawn, has to be drawn between what may be called negligence which is culpable and that degree of negligence which amounts to an error of judgment. It is a painful thing to have to do, but one must not forget the character of the catastrophe, even when one considers the memories of individuals, and I submit -
The Commissioner:
That observation was made by Mr. Scanlan, and for my own part I protest against dividing the question in this case with reference to the terrible nature of the calamity. The magnitude of the disaster has really in truth no bearing upon the question of negligence, and I am sure you will agree with me in that.
Mr. Edwards:
Quite, my Lord; I mean it has been rather put that there should be a very special and tender regard, and quite rightly, for the memory of a dead man, who possibly might have been in fault; but, on the other side, there are considerations which I am suggesting. Those considerations, if I may say so, wipe each other out, and, therefore, what your Lordship has to consider is quite rigidly and quite formally the question of whether there was in the light of all the circumstances negligent navigation, and to come to your decision entirely regardless of personal feeling on one side or the other.
Now, what I was going to say with regard to this is this: The "Baltic" Marconigram does not merely say that there are icebergs, but it says that there are great masses of field ice. The Marconigram makes it perfectly clear that that ice is going to be met with in a few hours in the direct course of the "Titanic." It is further worked out that they are going to reach it, one Officer says something after eleven, but by correction by another Officer, something after nine o'clock.
The Commissioner:
You are not quite right, I think, there. You are referring now, I think, to the statement that is supposed to have been made by Mr. Moody.
Mr. Edwards:
Yes, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
And the only evidence we have of that is Lightoller's evidence.
Mr. Edwards:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
And Lightoller's evidence upon that point is, in my opinion, not at all satisfactory. I have been examining it very carefully, and it seems to contain contradictions and statements which it is very difficult to reconcile with what we know to have been the facts. I am not disposed to place very much reliance, or to attach much importance, to the fact that Moody is stated to have calculated that they would get into the ice region at eleven. It is not right. If he was acting upon the "Caronia" Marconigram eleven o'clock would not be right; 9.30 would be right, as I understand.
Mr. Edwards:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
And Lightoller, when he gave his evidence about it, is not, in my opinion, very satisfactory.
Mr. Edwards:
Whether there was a dual calculation, and whether there was one correct and the other incorrect, based on the "Caronia," or the "Baltic" is immaterial to the main point I was making, which is this, that there was contained in the "Baltic" message a sufficient warning as to the character of the ice that was to be met with.
The Commissioner:
Do you mean the "Baltic" or the "Caronia"?
Mr. Edwards:
I mean from the "Baltic," my Lord. By a correct calculation it was quite clear that that ice was to be met with in the track which the "Titanic" was pursuing, and that it was to be met with at a point and at a time which the Officers could accurately calculate from the speed which she was then making from the point where they knew her to be. The other point is really a sort of backwash of very little importance to the main stream of the contention.
I do not want to labour this point because this must constitute one of the very main points upon which the learned Attorney-General will have to address your Lordship; but I do submit, in view of the particular character of the ice indicated that at least that caution ought to have been manifested in the navigation of that ship which this Company has imposed upon its commanders when they meet with ice of a similar character in a district where it is much more frequently met with; and that in practically ignoring that special warning, and by proceeding at an unabated pace, those responsible for the navigation of the ship, whether it be at that moment the Captain, or Mr. Murdoch, are guilty of reprehensible negligence.
Now I pass from that point to the next question to which I must address some few words, and that is the circumstances which transpired immediately after the impact. I think that your Lordship will have no difficulty in finding, on the evidence as given, that an iceberg was struck, that an iceberg did rip and jag the ship, either in a wholesale way, or, as was rather suggested by Mr. Wilding, in a detached and, if I may say so, a speckled kind of way. Three or four very important questions arise on this. If the main portion of the evidence which has been given is to be relied upon, then it is pretty clear that the "Titanic," when she went down, went down very gradually, and that the evidence which has been given about her going down head first and practically perpendicularly is not true. If she went down as was suggested, the more gradually she sloped it is perfectly clear the wider the area occupied by water; that is to say, if you had had a sufficient amount of water in the very fore-part of the ship to sink her, then she would have tilted up and gone down as some of the Witnesses have described. So that it is pretty clear on the evidence that, as the sinking was gradual, there must have been water coming in a good way aft.
That will raise and has raised one or two very serious questions which your Lordship and your special technical advisers will have to decide, namely, as to whether there was any fault in the construction of the ship; whether there was any negligence in utilising the mechanical precautions in the ship for averting a disaster of this kind; whether the bulkheads did serve their purpose even as far as they were intended; whether this, therefore, was a much greater catastrophe than was anticipated in the putting in of those particular bulkheads; whether the speed with which she sank was in any way facilitated by the refusal of the builders to adopt a certain suggestion and recommendation by the Marine Department of the Board of Trade; and whether the Marine Department of the Board of Trade were right in yielding to the objection of the builders in respect of those particular precautionary measures.
First of all, as the evidence stands, it is fairly clear, I think, that the brunt of the collision was on the starboard shoulder close to the spiral staircase. It is also perfectly clear that there was some mischief either in the immediate vicinity of the spiral staircase or in the vicinity of the firemen's passage. It is perfectly clear that in Boiler Section 6 there was a very great deal of mischief; it is also clear that there was some, but slight mischief, in the starboard bunker of Boiler Section 5. So far as the positive evidence goes that is practically all there is to indicate the extent of the mischief. But there is also certain circumstantial evidence, quite reliable, I think, that there was mischief in both No. 1 hold and in No. 2 hold. We have a statement reported to have been made by the carpenter as to the one hold, and you have the evidence, I think it was of Dillon, who saw the tarpaulin over the other hold bellying as if the water was rushing in and forcing the air against the top. We have also certain evidence, and I think perfectly reliable evidence, that for an hour and forty minutes after the accident had happened the watertight doors were opened; immediately after they had been closed they were opened and were left open for an hour and forty minutes from the engine room through to No. 1 Boiler Section through to No. 2 Boiler Section, through to No. 3 Boiler Section and through to No. 4 Boiler Section.
The Commissioner:
I do not want to interrupt you unduly, but if you can give me the references to the evidence it will assist me. If you find it inconvenient do not stop.
Mr. Edwards:
It is the evidence of Dillon, my Lord, at page 101 - my examination of Dillon. I asked him, at Question 3913, "From the time that the ship struck until you came back from No. 4 Boiler Section, what time elapsed? - (A.) About an hour and forty minutes. (Q.) At that time some water was coming through in No. 4 Boiler Section? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) As you came back was there any water at all coming in at No. 3 or No. 2, or not? - (A.) No. (Q.) From the time that you left the engine room until you started back from No. 4 Boiler Section what time elapsed? - (A.) From the time I left the engine room till the time I came back from No. 4 Section what time elapsed? (Q.) Yes? - (A.) An hour and ten minutes. (Q.) Did you report to anybody in the engine room that you had seen water coming through in No. 4 Boiler Section? - (A.) No. (Q.) Did anyone report, to your knowledge? - (A.) No, all the engineers were working there. (The Commissioner.) Do you mean by that that they all knew it? - (A.) Yes. (Mr. Clement Edwards.) Did you hear any orders given, before you left, to reclose the watertight doors? - (A.) No." So that there is that evidence as it stands that for an hour and forty minutes after the accident the watertight doors aft of Nos. 4 and 5 bulkhead were open.
Then you have the evidence of Barrett. I am sure your Lordship will recognise that I am getting warm again. You will find his evidence on page 57.
The Commissioner:
What part of the evidence do you want to refer to?
Mr. Edwards:
I think it was in the re-examination by the learned Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General:
If you tell me what it is I can find it.
Mr. Edwards:
I want the passage where he described how he escaped from No. 5 hold.
The Commissioner:
It is not in your re-examination, Mr. Attorney, because that is quite short.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Barrett was recalled at page 66.
The Commissioner:
Is it Question 2038, Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Edwards:
Would your Lordship mind reading it; I have not it at the moment.
The Commissioner:
I will. He describes how Shepherd broke his leg, you remember.
Mr. Edwards:
Yes, it was some time subsequent to that.
The Commissioner:
"(Q.) 2032. He broke his leg? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) What did you do with him? - (A.) We lifted him up and carried him into the pump room, me and Mr. Harvey. (Q.) Is that the pump room in No. 5? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) At this time, in this No. 5, was it easy to see? - (A.) No, all the water which had been thrown on the furnaces when they were pulled out was making the stokehold thick with steam. (Q.) And then you attended to Mr. Shepherd as best you could. Did you stay there after that? - (A.) Just about a quarter of an hour after that. (Q.) And during that quarter of an hour did No. 5 keep free from water? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Then tell us what happened at the end of a quarter of an hour? - (A.) A rush of water came through the pass - the forward end. (Q.) You say the forward end of the pass. What is the pass? - (A.) It is a space between the boilers where we walk through. (Q.) There are boilers on either side of it? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) From which direction did this water come? - (A.) From the forward end. (Q.) And this pass that you walk through, is that at the same level as the plates? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) The same level as where you were standing? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Supposing that the bulkhead which is the fore end of No. 5 had given way, would water come through it and through this pass? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Do you know yourself where it was the water came from, whether it had got through the bulkhead or not? - (A.) I did not stop to look." I do not know whether that is what you wanted.
Mr. Edwards:
That is part of the passage, my Lord; and a little further on your Lordship asked him at the top of page 60, in the second column: "It could not come over the top of the bulkhead, I suppose? (The Solicitor-General.) I was going to ask him. He could tell from his feet, of course, whether the ship had shown any tendency to tip, because that gives one some guide. (To the Witness.) Can you tell us up to this time, was the ship lying on an even keel? - (A.) No, she was sloping down by the head. (Q.) You felt that she was down by the head? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Had you noticed that already? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) And had it been getting worse? - (A.) Yes." Then Question 2056 is "and you say it got worse. Now can you give me any idea whether the water came from over the top of the bulkhead or through it? - (A.) I do not see how it could come over the top. (Q.) You do not think it did come over the top? - (A.) No. (Q.) Now, when it came through this pass between the boilers, did it come with a rush? - (A.) Yes. (The Commissioner.) I suppose he means by that as if something had given way. (The Solicitor-General.) Do you hear my Lord's question? He is asking whether, when you said that, you got the impression that something had given way? - (A.) That was my idea. (The Commissioner.) Something that had been holding the water back gave way? - (A.) That is my idea, my Lord."
The Commissioner:
Then my attention is drawn to page 67, Question 2103: "Then you got this wall, nine feet or thereabouts. I want you to tell us, was the water coming through all parts of that or through some part of it only? - (A.) Which wall do you mean? (Q.) The water is coming through the skin of the ship into the bunker? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) And the bunker is about nine feet along the side of the ship. Now, I want to know, was the water coming in at this level right across the bunker or only in part of it? - (A.) Water was coming in about two feet abaft the watertight bulkhead. (Q.) Do you mean that it was coming in from the watertight bulkhead and for two feet back? - (A.) No, only from the ship's side. The watertight bulkhead was not damaged. (Q.) Was it coming in at one point, or was it coming in for two feet? - (A.) I could not estimate exactly how large the hole was."
Sir Robert Finlay:
I think this was discussed in the course of the evidence, and the conclusion reached, I thought, finally was that the water was coming in through the side of the ship, and what gave way was the side of the bunker, which was another thing altogether, and then there was the rush of water. I thought we had settled all that.
The Attorney-General:
Mr. Edwards, I think, gave out that it was the bulkhead that gave way.
Mr. Edwards:
The side of the bunker in that case would correspond with the bulkhead?
Sir Robert Finlay:
No.
The Attorney-General:
No, not there.
The Commissioner:
I daresay you are right about this, Sir Robert, but unfortunately these things escape my memory a little. What is suggested to me, Mr. Edwards, is this, that the water got into number 5 boiler room at the bottom of the strong watertight bulkhead, separating 6 and 5 - I mean of course through the ship's side - but at the point where the watertight bulkhead separates 6 from 5.
Sir Robert Finlay:
A little abaft that point, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
A little abaft, that is to say it had not come into number 6 but it came into number 5, but just abaft of the bulkhead separating 5 and 6.
Mr. Edwards:
Does your Lordship mean that particular wound did not go into number 6 because your Lordship will remember that in number 6 it came with a great rush.
The Commissioner:
I am talking about the particular wound in number 5.
Mr. Edwards:
Yes, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
That particular wound was just abaft of the bulkhead separating 5 from 6, and it let water into a space which had a bulkhead a little further aft which was not watertight and in which there was a door which had been shut, and it is suggested that the water getting into that small space bounded by a strong watertight bulkhead on the forward side of it, and by a bulkhead which was not watertight and had a door on it on the after side of it - it is suggested that the water would break through the weakest side, that is to say, the bulkhead which was not watertight and which had a door in it. Does that agree with your view, Sir Robert?
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, my Lord.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, my Lord, I understood that was what the evidence was. I thought we had agreed at a certain stage that that was the effect of it after a good deal of discussion.
Mr. Edwards:
For present purposes it does not very much matter. I shall have to say something when I come to deal with the question of surveying; but it appears to be common ground that something gave way and caused the water to come with a rush, and alternatively that was the side of the bunker under the pressure of water which had come through the wound in number 5 about 2 feet abaft the 5 and 6 bulkhead, or the great pressure of the water in number 6 by pouring in there had caused the forward end of section 5 of the bulkhead to give way. Those are the alternatives, and so long as your Lordship and your advisers know that -
Sir Robert Finlay:
There is no alternative at all. The evidence is quite clear. I submit that the water did not come through owing to the bulkhead giving way, but came through the side of the vessel.
Mr. Edwards:
With very great respect I do not think that Sir Robert can point to a single passage which makes that clear. It may be an inference which he draws. Barrett, of course, simply says he did not stop to look; he got up out of it. There it is, my Lord, I have drawn attention to it. In either event, it will raise the question as to whether if it be the bulkhead, they should not have been stronger; if it be the side of the bunker, serving as a sort of inner skin, whether that should not be stronger. It is a matter which your Lordship will have to consider if I may say so with respect, with your assessors.
Now the next question which comes is again a matter which may have to be considered both collectively and also alternatively, and that is the question as to whether, what I may call the later water mischief - I am coming to the engine room - was due in the first place, or entirely, to water coming over the bulkheads, especially 5 and 6 bulkheads; and whether, in the second place, when the water came over in that way, it did mischief and irreparable mischief in the engine room and sections 1, 2 and 3 before the automatic float for the watertight door had operated; or whether again (there is no definite evidence) the bulkhead between sections 4 and 5 gave way. The further question is whether, though the automatic float may have operated all right, the water came over the bulkhead and came across the working alleyway, and down. Very strong views were taken as to the efficacy of this automatic float which your Lordship had an opportunity of seeing upon the "Olympic." If your Lordship will take your mind back you will remember the watertight doorways between -
The Commissioner:
If the automatic door remained open, that is to say if it did not work so as to close, the ship would have remained afloat longer, would it not?
Mr. Edwards:
That, of course, my Lord, is my suggestion, but I do not want to have it put, if I may say so, quite upon me to assert that positively. I did not really wish to carry it further than this, with an eye on the future. After very careful consideration, the point is how far the automatic float, which is supposed to operate the closing of the door, on the theory that water may gradually rise from the bottom of the ship, how far that particular operation may be retarded by a great rush of water on a level above the float through a straight passage through the watertight doors on a level with the engine room. That was rather the point. Your Lordship may perhaps remember I directed certain questions of my examination of Mr. Wilding to show that whilst water coming up, on the principle of the working of the ball-tap, underneath this hollow float might raise it, a huge rush of water across the top might retard it. That is while the level below the engine room floor might get full up to a sufficient level to operate the watertight door, you might have insufficient water in each one of the subsequent sections. That was the point. Mr. Wilding to begin with strongly combated that view, but he finally agreed that there might be some effect. This of course is essentially a technical question, and a technical question of vital importance to the future question as to how far bulkheads should be solid bulkheads, and how far there should be watertight doors, and, if there should be watertight doors how far they may or may not be automatically operated. It is not a question which I feel at all competent to discuss in all its bearings, but it is a matter which I do suggest - it has been rather impressed upon me by my clients - is one of very great importance. It is sufficient for my purpose if it is one of the matters upon which your Lordship will carefully consult your technical advisers. In this connection this question arises. There has been really no definite evidence upon it, but I would ask your Lordship to have it in mind in any special recommendations that your Lordship may make to the Bulkhead Committee. The whole effective argument in the case of this "Titanic" that has been put forward for leaving those watertight doors open was to get through certain additional pumping pipes. A very important question I suggest arises here which your Lordship might consider if I may say so with respect with your technical advisers, that the whole of the pumping arrangements instead of working horizontally along the bottom of the ship might be worked over the tops of the bulkheads. It is a point which has been suggested and I do not want to pursue it any further.
Now comes the question: Supposing the bulkheads had been taken higher, supposing there had been a watertight deck at least up to which the other bulkhead went; supposing that the firemen's passage and the spiral staircase had been trunked, supposing all these things had been done, would there have been a substantial delay in the sinking of the "Titanic." Secondly, if all these things had been done would it have been probable that the "Titanic" would not have sunk at all even assuming all the mischiefs that were done. These questions are not asked idly or speculatively. Every one of these questions I have put is raised as part and parcel of the negotiations - I would rather use that term - between the Marine Department of the Board of Trade and Messrs. Harland and Wolff, and also arise in the instructions to the Surveyors and that report of the Bulkhead Committee, by which they say that Surveyors are guided in their decision. I have asked those questions. There is a certain amount of evidence upon them. Mr. Archer gave definite evidence, and I think perhaps it would be convenient if, having asked the questions, I just left the answers until I come to deal with the evidence of these particular Officers. I think it will save a good deal of time, if I may say so. Mr. Archer, your Lordship will remember, took a strong view with regard to the question. It raises also the whole question of the policy and conduct of the Marine Department in regard to the construction of the "Titanic." I will leave it and return to it in connection with the Board of Trade.
Then, my Lord, another point arises. Immediately after the accident what communications were set up with other ships?
The Commissioner:
What is the evidence as to what the effect would be if there had been in the "Titanic" a continuous watertight deck?
Mr. Edwards:
The evidence, my Lord, is that of Mr. Archer.
The Commissioner:
Will you refer me to it?
Mr. Edwards:
It is on page 691, my Lord. This matter is so important that perhaps your Lordship would not mind turning to page 690. There was a good deal of discussion as to it. Why I was suggesting that the things should be taken together is this: Your Lordship will see on page 689 at Question 24373 I start discussing with Mr. Archer the question of the watertight deck as contained in the report of the Bulkheads Committee. Then I travel on the same matter right away through to page 691, Question 24424. "(Q.) Now, in the light of the 'Titanic' experience, do you think that a very great advantage might be obtained from the point of view of greater safety, in having a watertight deck? - (A.) Yes, I do. (Q.) Now, the relative sinkability of a ship which has had its side opened to the sea depends, does it not, upon the height to which water may be allowed to come in the so-called watertight compartment? That is to say, if you have two watertight compartments filled - that is, to the height of the waterline - still the 'Titanic' might have floated? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Now supposing you had had a watertight deck below the waterline here, the chances are that three or four of the compartments might have been filled, and still she would have floated? - (A.) That is so."
The Attorney-General:
The difficulty I feel in dealing with this point is, as your Lordship will remember, that this discussion arose as to whether you could properly have a watertight deck in these ships, and it was felt that it was a very difficult question. Your Lordship points out that you thought this was one of those questions which ought to be taken into consideration by the Advisory Committee dealing with bulkheads, and there it was left. Your Lordship indicated to my friend, Mr. Edwards, that that was what you supposed was all he wanted, and my friend, Mr. Edwards, says Yes. That is at page 692.
Mr. Edwards:
I think we were a little at cross-purposes. What I was suggesting was, looking into the future, so far as the value of watertight decks is concerned, it was a matter that should be left open.
The Attorney-General:
That is quite right.
Mr. Edwards:
But specifically I say here at once that according to my view the Marine Department of the Board of Trade ought to have insisted upon a watertight deck, and inasmuch as they did not do so they were guilty of negligence.
The Attorney-General:
That is a very extraordinary proposition for me to have to deal with after what took place. I thought that was the precise point which was left.
The Commissioner:
I understood Mr. Edwards to say that he raised the question of the advantage of a watertight deck, and that was to be a subject of the reference to the Committee, but that with respect to the "Titanic" in particular he says that there ought to have been a watertight deck and that the absence of the watertight deck contributed towards the disaster.
The Attorney-General:
How can you decide that unless you come to a conclusion whether or not it is an advantage to have a watertight deck. If your Lordship will look at the bottom of page 691 you will see what I mean. I agree my friend raised it and raised it very specifically, but I thought the point was left at this, that he had shown that it was an important matter and that is was one which ought to be considered by the Committee because obviously there are many considerations to be taken into account before you come to the conclusion that there must be a watertight deck, and that there was negligence of anybody in not advising it or in not having it. That was the point we did not go into. Your Lordship took the point yourself.
The Commissioner:
I think so. I am referring now, Mr. Edwards, to what I said, which appears on page 691. I am addressing the Attorney-General: "The gentlemen who advise me on this matter seem to think that the Committee which is to take into consideration these matters should among other things consider the desirability of having watertight decks either above or below the waterline." That comes immediately after you had been putting questions to Mr. Archer as to the advisability of having a watertight deck in the "Titanic."
Mr. Edwards:
Well, my Lord, if your Lordship will kindly look you will find that after I had put my specific question to which Mr. Archer gave me an answer he went on then to speak of certain theoretical objections and I was taking him upon those theoretical objections and, of course, beginning to discuss the whole question, when your Lordship intervened and suggested that this was a matter of such importance that it ought to be dealt with by the Committee. But I say that I had no intention at all of leaving to a Bulkhead Committee, which is not entirely out of the wood over this question themselves, the question of whether there ought or ought not to have been in the "Titanic" a watertight deck.
The Commissioner:
I do not see what the Bulkhead Committee have got to do with the matter. What do you mean by saying they are not out of the wood.
Mr. Edwards:
They are the people that you have suggested should consider this question.
The Commissioner:
They are.
The Attorney-General:
They have been just appointed.
The Commissioner:
They are, but I do not know they are in anyway pledged to any particular view.
The Attorney-General:
They have only just been appointed for this purpose.
Continued >
