British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 29
Final Arguments, cont.
Mr. Edwards:
I misunderstood. It was not a continuing Committee, but a new Committee I understand?
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
Mr. Edwards:
I misunderstood.
The Commissioner:
Are you thinking of Sir Edward Harland's Committee.
Mr. Edwards:
I was thinking of the Committee which did discuss this question of bulkheads last year. I mean Sir Norman Hill's Committee.
The Attorney-General:
They had nothing to do with it; they only said it ought to be taken into account.
Mr. Edwards:
I at once say that what I said is withdrawn; it does not touch this point. But what I was satisfied should be dealt with by that Committee was the theoretical question of the advantage or otherwise of the watertight deck in ships. I did not intend nor do I intend being satisfied with leaving to the Committee the question whether in the "Titanic" there ought or ought not to have been a watertight deck.
The Attorney-General:
That is a position I really do not understand. I was going to read three or four questions which took place on it if your Lordship will look at what happened. My friend is drawing a distinction now between whether or not it is advisable to have watertight decks, and then agrees that that is to be left to the Bulkhead Committee. That arose upon Mr. Archer pointing out some balancing considerations, and its being obvious from what was taking place that it is not such an easy thing to say. You must have a watertight deck. And that does not end it, there are so many other considerations to take into account. Then your Lordship said this was one of those matters which ought to be left to the Bulkhead Committee, because, obviously it would take months to enquire into properly. If you read on, three or four observations that are made here, I cannot understand how we are to deal with this now. We never asked another question about it; it was left. Let me read what took place.
Mr. Edwards:
Do you mind reading the three questions before.
The Attorney-General:
I agree; I will with pleasure, because I think it makes it so plain. Do you mean 24429.
Mr. Edwards:
Take 24426.
The Attorney-General:
We have read that. Then he is asked to explain why.
Mr. Edwards:
Do you mind reading the end of 24426.
The Attorney-General:
I thought we had read it. I will read it again.
The Commissioner:
Forgive me, you stopped reading the answer, "That is so"; but this is Mr. Archer going on - "Might I be allowed to point out the great objection to taking a deck below the waterline. If the damage had occurred not below the deck, but above the deck, there would be a danger in many vessels that they would capsize."
The Attorney-General:
Yes, and then he says, "Would you explain why? - (A.) Because, if I may put it in a rough and ready way, you have admitted water above this deck, and you have a space in which there is no water, but a space filled with air, and there would be a big air bubble, which tends to turn the ship over. (Q.) There might be a possibility of getting a little top-heavy? - (A.) Yes, if you get a deck below the waterline. (Q.) But that could be easily relieved, could it not, by a valve arrangement to let the water through. If that were the particular danger, you might get some compensation by having an opening in the floor? - (A.) In the deck, do you mean? (Q.) Yes? - (A.) Then your deck would be no use. (Q.) I am suggesting that it might be used under all circumstances except the particular one of danger which you point out? - (A.) Yes, if you can avoid that danger of a ship capsizing, the watertight deck below the line is useful." Then I remember there was a little discussion between your Lordship and those skilled gentlemen who are assisting you, and then your Lordship said, "Mr. Attorney, 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. I do not know whether you or Sir Robert Finlay would suggest that that is not a desirable thing to be submitted. (The Attorney-General.) I think it would be quite right that it should be suggested for their consideration. It was occurring to me during my friend's examination, but I did not attempt to ask your Lordship's view about it. It would be obviously impossible to decide upon this question without a mass of evidence which we have not called. (The Commissioner.) Oh, yes. (The Attorney-General.) But it occurred to me that might be the right course. (The Commissioner.) That is probably all you want at present, Mr. Edwards? (Mr. Clement Edwards.) Yes. (The Commissioner.) I said long ago we cannot sit here - I should have to sit for months, or years, possibly - to decide a question of this kind; but the gentlemen who are with me are of opinion that the question of watertight decks either above or below the waterline is a matter that requires examination and consideration. That probably is all that you would ask, Mr. Edwards? (Mr. Clement Edwards.) Yes. (Sir Robert Finlay.) I quite agree with what the Attorney-General has said. Of course there are a great many balancing considerations which need to be taken into account. (The Commissioner.) Yes. (Sir Robert Finlay.) That is without in the slightest degree prejudging the question, which is undoubtedly one which deserves consideration. What the result may be of course will appear later." Then my friend Mr. Edwards says: "That intimation is quite sufficient for my purpose. I shall not attempt to pursue it" There the matter stopped, and there has never been another question asked about it.
Mr. Edwards:
Might I say, my Lord, that in precisely the same position stands the question of the height and strength of the bulkheads which I was pursuing when your Lordship intimated on a suggestion of mine that probably the Bulkhead Committee might take the matter into consideration; and in precisely the same position stands the question which I was also pursuing as to what I may call the interrelation between the boat accommodation and the sinkability of the ship. That again on my suggestion was conveyed by your Lordship to the Attorney-General as a matter to be considered by the Committee.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, that is quite right.
Mr. Edwards:
But because those matters in their theoretical aspect and with regard to the future are to be considered by the Committee, does that mean that your Lordship is not to express a view in this Enquiry as to the character of the bulkheads here? Does that mean that in your Lordship's view this Enquiry is not to determine the question as to whether there were or were not sufficient boats? I submit that the two things are totally different.
The Attorney-General:
That is quite a different thing.
The Commissioner:
Nobody suggested that. But let me ask you, did you put these questions with reference to watertight decks and their effect or a deck and its effect to Mr. Wilding?
Mr. Edwards:
With regard to a watertight deck. Not then, but subsequently; because if your Lordship will remember it was not until Mr. Archer was in the box and while he was under examination that we got produced from the Board of Trade the correspondence which transpired. Mr. Wilding was asked by me as to certain correspondence, and he said he did not remember; and when Mr. Archer was in the box we got the correspondence, and as I shall show later on that was one of the reasons why I desired to deal with the whole question in relation to the conduct of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade. This very question of a watertight deck is raised in the correspondence between the builders and the Marine Department of the Board of Trade. There it is a question of a partial watertight deck.
The Commissioner:
Do let us see where we are. Are you not wanting to suggest that this ship was an unseaworthy ship because she had not a watertight deck? Is not that what you want to suggest?
Mr. Edwards:
Yes, my Lord, that is so.
The Commissioner:
You seem to hesitate about it.
Mr. Edwards:
Because I did not want to be drawn further afield than I think is necessary for the purpose. What I would rather put is this, that under normal conditions of navigation she might have stood things, but she was not seaworthy for the purpose of going straight through ice. I would rather put it in this way that the Marine Department of the Board of Trade did in the first place submit certain requirements to Messrs. Harland and Wolff for this and the sister ship the "Olympic," and what I am going to say is this that if the Marine Department of the Board of Trade had insisted on those requirements the probabilities are that the "Titanic" would be afloat today. I do not know whether your Lordship has seen the correspondence.
The Commissioner:
No I have not seen it; I think you took it.
Mr. Edwards:
Well, it has been printed, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
You appropriated it.
Mr. Edwards:
It has been printed and I thought your Lordship had been supplied with copies by the Board of Trade.
The Commissioner:
Well, they had some mercy upon me. But I want to understand what your contention is. If your contention is not that this was an unseaworthy ship, then I do not know what your contention is.
Mr. Edwards:
Very well, my Lord. This is Question 2 put to this Enquiry: "Before leaving Queenstown on or about 11th April last, did the 'Titanic' comply with the requirements of the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894-1906, and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder with regard to the safety and otherwise of 'passenger steamers' the 'emigrant ships'?" The answer which I am going to ask your Lordship in your judgment to return to the question is "No."
The Commissioner:
Well now, why?
Mr. Edwards:
Because I shall be able to show your Lordship that the loadline was higher than was required by what has been called Table C; I shall be able to show from the correspondence that the Marine Department of the Board of Trade permitted the bulkhead which their regulations require to come to a certain deck, to only come up to a deck, one below, and I shall be able, I think, to satisfy your Lordship that according to their own showing these ought to have been in this ship on the recommendations of the Harland Committee on bulkheads, which they take as their guide, a watertight deck running throughout. Those are the three propositions.
The Commissioner:
The last is the one you are on at present.
Mr. Edwards:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
Now which is the Rule of the Board of Trade which requires a watertight deck?
Mr. Edwards:
Your Lordship will remember that the Assistant-Secretary, Sir Walter Howell, and Captain Young and Mr. Archer all said that the standard by which they were guided in deciding whether there should be an efficient watertight system was the report of the Harland Committee.
The Commissioner:
That is not a Rule or regulation of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Edwards:
The officials themselves said that that report was, in the matter of bulkheads, as to scantlings and as to watertightness, the sole standard by which they were guided.
The Commissioner:
Well, I do not know yet whether they did or did not say so, but I am upon Question 2, and that is the question you say I ought to answer in the negative upon the ground that the builders of the "Titanic" did not supply a watertight deck. Now the question being "before leaving Queenstown did the vessel comply with the requirements of the Merchant Shipping Acts and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder?" - I ask you to tell me what is the Rule or the regulation made under the Merchant Shipping Acts which the builders of the "Titanic" did not comply with? How can I say, "No," unless you are able to point out to me the specific Rule or regulation and say they did not do that?
Mr. Edwards:
Very well, my Lord. Your Lordship will remember that I directed a great number of questions to ascertaining whether when the Surveyors were deciding upon the seaworthiness of a ship they had any standard or test by which to determine whether a ship was seaworthy or not.
The Commissioner:
I remember.
Mr. Edwards:
And your Lordship will remember - I can give you the references - that Sir Walter Howell, the Assistant Secretary, Captain Young, the present Technical Adviser, and Mr. Archer, the special Shipwright Surveyor, all said that the standard by which they were guided was that as laid down by the Bulkhead Committee's report, and the other standard was Lloyd's requirement.
The Commissioner:
But neither of those is a Rule or regulation of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Edwards:
If that be so, then here is a perfectly amazing position, that the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, the sole body responsible for determining whether ships are seaworthy or not, have no Rule and no regulation, and they have been entirely wrong all these years in treating the report of the Bulkhead Committee as a Rule for ascertaining what the scantling should be, and ascertaining what should be done as to watertight bulkheads. That is the position.
The Commissioner:
Do let us stick to the one thing - watertight decks. Now I want to see that I appreciate what you are saying. What you say as I understand is this, that they profess to be guided in their surveys of these vessels by Sir Edward Harland's recommendations when he was Chairman of the Bulkheads Committee, and that they have not done it in this case. Is not that what you mean?
Mr. Edwards:
Yes, but it is something a little more than that; that they profess that this report has been adopted by them as the guide and standard. If they have not that as the guide and standard, then there is no guide and standard, and every Surveyor in every port does just as he likes in the matter of bulkheads.
The Commissioner:
That is not quite the way to put it, I think. The better way to put it would be, "does what he thinks as a skilled man is right with reference to the particular ship that he is surveying," that is my amendment; but now will you turn if you please to the recommendations of the Harland Committee, and point out to me (I remember something of them and the expression "watertight decks"), where in that report watertight decks are insisted upon.
Mr. Edwards:
Yes, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
Just read it to me.
Mr. Edwards:
Amongst other things which this Committee were asked by the minute of the 7th March, 1890, to consider was "as to the manner in which ships shall be subdivided, so that they may float in moderate weather with any two compartments in free connection with the sea; and what Rule there should be as to the proportion of freeboard of the watertight deck next above, to which such bulkheads are attached, as shall be sufficient to enable the ship so to float." That is the request from the Board of Trade to which the Committee returned this answer: "Vessels may be considered able to float in moderate weather with any two adjoining compartments in free communication with the sea, if fitted with efficient transversed watertight bulkheads, so spaced that when two such compartments are laid open to the sea the uppermost watertight deck to which all the bulkheads extend and which we will call the bulkhead deck, is not brought nearer to the water surface than would be indicated by a line drawn round the side at a distance amidships of 3/100ths of the depth at side at that place below the bulkhead deck, and gradually approaching it towards the ends, where it may be 3/200ths of the same depth below it. This line we may call the margin-of-safety line."
The Commissioner:
Now what did Mr. Archer say with reference to that? I think he was examined on it.
Mr. Laing:
It is page 690, my Lord, Question 24381.
Mr. Edwards:
Will your Lordship turn to page 689, Question 24368, "Yes, my Lord, it sat pursuant to a Minute of March, 1890. (To the Witness.) (Q.) Had you anything to do with the drawing up of Circular 1401? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Are you responsible for its draftsmanship? - (A.) For its draftsmanship, yes. (Q.) Apart from Messrs. Harland and Wolff, has any discussion arisen with any firm of shipbuilders and yourself as to the precise meaning of this Rule? - (A.) I cannot recollect that any discussion has arisen as to the meaning of it. (Q.) I will come to the discussion you had upon it with Messrs. Harland and Wolff in a moment or two; but take that circular in conjunction with Rule 16. What were those Rules based upon? Were they based upon the Report of the Bulkheads' Committee of 1891? - (A.) No. (Q.) When you were asked to decide whether there is an efficient and watertight system of bulkheads in a ship to what do you refer? What is your standard? What is your test of efficiency? - (A.) I am not asked whether there is an efficient system. The question is not put to me. (Q.) By Rule 16 there is to be an efficient and watertight engine room and stokehold bulkhead, as well as a collision watertight bulkhead? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) What is your test of efficiency? Or, I will put it in this way; have you any standard by which to test the efficiency of a watertight bulkhead? - (A.) We have two standards; we have the standard laid down by the Committee of 1891, and the standard in Lloyd's Rules. (Q.) You do then sometimes refer to the Report of 1891? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Is it not the fact that in that Report of 1891, part of the test of an efficient watertight system was that there should be watertight decks? - (A.) In the Bulkheads Committee of 1891? (Q.) Yes? - (A.) If there is any requirement in the Report of the Bulkheads Committee that there ought to be watertight decks, it has escaped my memory; there may be such a thing. (The Commissioner.) Read it to us, Mr. Edwards. (Mr. Clement Edwards.) The Committee were asked by the Minute, My Lord, to report: 'As to the manner'" - then I read it.
The Commissioner:
Go to the end of your question - "Do you know if in any of the ships it was insisted upon that they should have a watertight bulkhead deck? - (A.) Not watertight in the sense of resisting pressure from below." That is from the sea. "Leave out the question of watertight in regard to pressure, but watertight in the sense of water not being able to percolate. (The Commissioner.) To flow over. (Mr. Clement Edwards.) That is so, my Lord; yes, to flow over. (The Witness.) No, we do not." And, therefore, whatever he said it is clear they did not adopt the Harland Committee's Report so far as it relates to watertight decks. What is suggested to me is that the expression "watertight deck" contained in the submission to the Harland Committee is not a watertight deck in the sense in which you have a watertight deck in a man-of-war but watertight in this sense that it will resist seas that may break over it, on the top of it. It will be battened down, if it has hatches in it so that seas breaking upon the top of it will not go into the space below.
The Attorney-General:
That is what Mr. Archer said in the questions that follow.
Mr. Edwards:
In reply to your Lordship Mr. Archer, in the following questions, gave that as his explanation of what he understood by a watertight deck.
The Commissioner:
If he is right, and so far as I know that is the only evidence we have on the subject, they had no unwritten Rule or regulation that a vessel like the "Titanic" should be provided with a continuous watertight deck in the strict sense of the word "watertight," and in fact Mr. Archer says that he had forgotten altogether that in the Harland Report the expression "watertight deck" was used at all. He says so.
Mr. Edwards:
That is so, my Lord. But this is part of the case. Here you have got a report by which those officials profess to be bound, and if they have taken a certain view - I am not surprised after the evidence we have had, if I may say so, from one or two of them, that they think that Report does not mean what the man in the street would understand by it - up to this time, though that report was published more than 20 years ago, I can quite understand that you have not the condition of things in practice.
The Commissioner:
Having regard to what the gentlemen at the side of me tell me I cannot help thinking that the expression "watertight deck" used in the submission to the Harland Committee and used also in the Report of the Harland Committee does not mean a watertight deck such as you are talking of.
Mr. Edwards:
May I ask your Lordship on that point to keep your mind open until I come to deal with the correspondence which passed between the Marine Department and Messrs. Harland and Wolff.
The Commissioner:
Very well, certainly I will.
Mr. Edwards:
Because they certainly did use the phrase there "watertight deck."
The Commissioner:
At all events, Mr. Archer says that it only meant a deck which was capable of resisting water from above. That is what I understand him to say, and it has always been treated so.
The Attorney-General:
There is one answer further than that, my Lord. On the same page you are reading there are several questions about it. He was asked "Are there any ships with watertight decks," because he had said it was not practicable, and he says "I do not know of any that are absolutely watertight."
The Commissioner:
A continuous watertight deck?
The Attorney-General:
No, only in certain parts.
The Commissioner:
With the exception of the "Mauretania," and possibly of the sister ship the "Lusitania," are there any British merchant steamers that are built with watertight decks fore and aft?
The Attorney-General:
Not certainly according to Mr. Archer's evidence. He says he did not know of any; and then the "Mauretania" and "Lusitania" were put to him.
The Commissioner:
What do you understand by a weather deck, Mr. Edwards?
Mr. Edwards:
I understand by a weather deck precisely what you have given as a description of a watertight deck.
The Commissioner:
You mean Mr. Archer's description?
Mr. Edwards:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
That is to say a deck that is to resist water from above?
Mr. Edwards:
The wash of the sea, yes.
The Commissioner:
Is there on any British steamer, except, perhaps, the "Mauretania" and the "Lusitania," any watertight deck other than that weather deck that you are talking of?
Mr. Edwards:
I am not sure that there is. When we come to deal with the Rules your Lordship will see that in most cases that particular deck is the deck which the regulations stipulate shall be the deck up to which the bulkheads come.
The Commissioner:
That is another matter. The bulkheads form what may be called the wall of the watertight compartment; the deck which you are speaking of forms the ceiling. What I am suggesting to you is this, that the ceiling is not watertight except in this sense, that it is intended to keep out water from above. I do not know, you know; I am rather asking you.
Mr. Edwards:
I think there was evidence.
The Commissioner:
If you are right in saying that this ship was not a seaworthy ship when she put to sea by reason of not having a watertight deck, why all the policies of insurance upon her are void.
Sir Robert Finlay:
And upon all other ships, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
And upon every other ship afloat. There is not a good policy of marine insurance on them, because the warranty of seaworthiness is absolute.
Mr. Edwards:
Well, my Lord, of course I cannot help what may be the consequence.
The Commissioner:
Oh, no, you do not mind the consequences, I daresay.
Mr. Edwards:
That is a great testimony to my indiscretion, my Lord. But if the Marine Department of the Board of Trade have placed this interpretation upon it, it is not at all surprising that there should be the condition of things which your Lordship suggests.
The Commissioner:
You know, I may tell you that one of my colleagues has drafted the terms of submission to the present Bulkhead Committee, which I think covers the point that you are upon, but of course it has no special reference to the "Titanic"; it is a general question: "The desirability of adopting a deck or decks at a convenient distance or distances from the waterline, made watertight throughout part or the whole of the vessel's length." That question it appears to me will cover the matter which you are upon for the future, but I agree with you it will have nothing to do with the particular question so far as it affects the past, and the "Titanic" of the past.
Mr. Edwards:
I do not know whether your colleague when he says "watertight deck" there means a watertight deck or only a deck up to which the bulkheads go. But just this one point, my Lord. If your Lordship will look carefully at No. 1 paragraph of the Committee's Report, if the suggestion of Mr. Archer as to interpretation is correct then this report is reduced to this absurdity, that when you say watertight bulkhead you mean a watertight bulkhead which is watertight, but when you say "watertight deck" you mean a deck which is not watertight.
The Commissioner:
Which is watertight, but only in a limited sense.
Mr. Edwards:
Well, it is watertight on the top side, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
That is true; and when it is a ceiling you know as a Rule you only want it watertight on the top side; you do not want it watertight underneath.
Mr. Edwards:
If you are living in a flat you can imagine a condition of things where you are bothered by your neighbour above you pouring water through; he can annoy you by filling his room with water and letting it down.
The Commissioner:
I do not know what the customs are of people who live in flats, but I do not think they fill their rooms with water as a Rule.
Mr. Edwards:
I can imagine watertight bulkheads being of great advantage then.
The Commissioner:
I think, Mr. Edwards, on the whole, you must leave this question of the watertight deck where it is; that is to say you must abandon the question so far as it relates to the past and to the "Titanic," and you must be satisfied with it forming the subject of a recommendation to the Committee.
Mr. Edwards:
That, if I may say so with respect, is subject to my dealing with what is raised in the correspondence.
The Commissioner:
It is subject, as I said just now, to your showing anything when we come to the correspondence to lead me to take a different view. I shall keep my mind open upon it.
Now what would you like me to do. Would you like me to rise now or sit to hear you out.
Mr. Edwards:
Frankly, I do not think I can finish now at a convenient time.
The Commissioner:
Very well, then I think under those circumstances we will rise.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I have heard from my friend Mr. Dunlop, who is going to address your Lordship with regard to the "Californian," that it would suit him better if I followed Mr. Edwards and that he should speak later. There can be no objection to that of course.
The Commissioner:
None at all. Mr. Dunlop's case has nothing to do with you.
Sir Robert Finlay:
No; so I propose, subject to your Lordship's approval, to address the Court tomorrow as soon as Mr. Edwards has finished.
The Commissioner:
Very well. My colleague, Mr. Chaston cannot be here tomorrow, but it makes no difference I think.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I think we have agreed there is no objection to be taken on that score.
(Adjourned to tomorrow, at 10.30 o'clock.)