British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 30
Final Arguments, cont.
The Attorney-General:
But it comes also at the beginning of 16, dealing with the three bulkheads, in respect of which they can make requirements which must be carried out. "A stokehold bulkhead, as well as a collision watertight bulkhead and an after watertight compartment, to enclose the stern tube in each screw shaft, should be fitted in all sea-going steamers, both new and old, and in the absence of any of these the case must be specially referred to the Board of Trade before a declaration is given." Then comes the end, where equally they have to refer to the Board of Trade. I call your Lordship's attention to that, because your Lordship may not remember exactly what took place with regard to the evidence. Mr. Carruthers was examined upon this, and he explained in detail what he did and what took place in London about it. It was referred to London; that was the point of it.
The Commissioner:
Now let me, Mr. Edwards, refer you to Rule 16, that part of it which has not been altered: "An efficient and watertight engine room should be fitted in all sea-going steamers." Do you suggest that that question of efficiency is not to be left to the man who surveys, or do you suggest that there ought to be Rules and Regulations the observance of which should alone constitute efficiency?
Mr. Edwards:
What I am suggesting, my Lord, is this, that certainly there should be a definite fixed standard of efficiency, which should be binding upon every surveyor of the Board of Trade.
The Commissioner:
Just let us test that. Does rivetting constitute any part of the construction of a watertight engine room?
Mr. Edwards:
Certainly, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
It does?
Mr. Edwards:
Certainly, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
Is there to be a Rule and Regulation which says how many blows each rivet is to receive?
Mr. Edwards:
No, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
He is to exercise his discretion, then?
Mr. Edwards:
May I answer the specific question by telling your Lordship exactly what is done? If your Lordship will turn to the report of the Bulkheads Committee and turn to the tables at the end, and if your Lordship will also turn (I think Professor Biles has a copy of it) to Lloyd's Rules and Regulations, you will there see in those two volumes the rules and regulations laid down for rivetting.
The Commissioner:
Will you read to me one of those rules, so that I may gather how this efficiency is to be regulated by Rules.
Mr. Edwards:
Yes, my Lord. If your Lordship will allow me to complete. If your Lordship will turn to the evidence of Sir Walter Howell given in reply to the Attorney-General, you will find that he says that the standard by which the surveyors are guided in ascertaining what is efficient are these things to which I have referred.
The Commissioner:
Refer to one of them; read it to me so that I may understand it. I want to know what the Rules are that regulate efficient rivetting. Can anyone tell me where those Rules are?
Mr. Edwards:
Yes, my Lord. I think Professor Biles has a copy of them, and if he will turn to Section 25, on pages 41 and 42, he will see what I am referring to.
The Commissioner:
Are there any Rules or Regulations which regulate the hammering in of the rivets?
Mr. Edwards:
No, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
Then who is to judge whether that work has been properly done?
Mr. Edwards:
Your Lordship is asked two specific questions, and I think it would perhaps have been better if your Lordship had looked at them.
The Commissioner:
I am told by the Professor who sits on my left that there are no such Rules, and I do not see how there can be.
Mr. Edwards:
Not as to hammering, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
I am told that hammering is a most important part of rivetting.
Mr. Edwards:
There are certain tests - tests when they are forged - as to the character of the rivets; there are certain tests as to the kind of rivet holes; there are certain tests as to the flanges of rivets.
The Commissioner:
Are there any Rules or Regulations as to the hammering of them in?
Mr. Edwards:
No, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
Do you agree that the hammering of them in is a very important part of the work?
Mr. Edwards:
Of course, hammering in is always important.
The Commissioner:
Then you must leave something to the discretion of the surveyor.
Mr. Edwards:
Quite. May I say this, my Lord, that inasmuch as what the Marine Department of the Board of Trade consider, and have in this Enquiry officially admitted, that they are for, is for the purpose of testing efficiency guided by a combination of rules - those contained in Lloyd's Rules and Regulations, and those contained in the appendix of the Report of the Bulkheads Committee - at least, it would be advisable to see that these Rules and Regulations, or rules and regulations of a similar character down at least as low in detail as these go, might be made part and parcel of the Regulations of the Board of Trade, so that in every case when trouble comes we may know exactly to what there shall be reference for the purpose of judging and testing the conduct of the different interests that may be affected. That is all I say, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
Very well. Now, let us pass on, and tell me in what respect they neglected the Rules and Regulations as described by you. What is it that they failed to do?
Mr. Edwards:
Again, my Lord, I have not yet had, with respect, from your Lordship a ruling as to whether I am to treat -
The Commissioner:
I am not going to make a ruling for shortening your speech. You must deal with it as though I ruled in your favour. Tell me in what respect they failed.
Mr. Edwards:
I will do that, my Lord. The view that I take with regard to these Rules and Regulations is that compliance with them must be taken as a sine qua non for the issue by the -
The Commissioner:
You have said that already. I want you to tell me now which rules it was that they did not comply with.
Mr. Edwards:
I will ask your Lordship to look at this Rule 16. The only important point for this purpose at the moment is the paragraph in Circular 1401: "The collision bulkhead is in all cases to extend to the upper deck. If an iron or steel watertight deck or flat is fitted below the upper deck at the after-end of the vessel, and forms the top of the after watertight compartment, the aftermost bulkhead may terminate at the said watertight deck or flat, but if no such watertight deck or flat is fitted, the aftermost bulkhead should extend to the upper deck. When the loadline disc of the vessel is placed at least as low as is required by Table C of the Freeboard Tables for Awning-deck Vessels the remaining bulkheads may terminate at the deck next below the upper deck, but when the disc of vessels other than those of the awning-deck type is placed higher than required by Table C, all the bulkheads should extend watertight to the upper deck. In interpreting the above Rule, in the case of vessels of the shelter deck type" - and the "Titanic" was held by the Board of Trade, as was given in evidence by two of the surveyors, to have a deck of the shelter deck type - "the deck next below the shelter deck may be regarded as the upper deck, and accordingly the collision bulkhead, as well as the other bulkheads, may terminate at the deck next below the shelter deck, provided the Surveyor is satisfied that the deck in question would not, owing to a deficiency of sheer or for any other reason, be brought dangerously near the water surface in the event of the collision compartment being holed."
The Commissioner:
That clearly leaves it to the discretion of the Surveyor.
Mr. Edwards:
With a variation. That is not a discretion that gets rid of the height of the bulkhead in relation to Table C.
The Commissioner:
I am talking now of what you have just been reading: "Provided the Surveyor is satisfied."
Mr. Edwards:
Very well, my Lord, that is to say that if the Surveyor were satisfied, the bulkhead could, in this case, terminate at deck D; that is to say the shelter deck here will be deck C, and the upper deck will be deck D, and there is a discretion within the Surveyor anyhow so far as down to deck D is concerned. But there is no discretion in the Rule in the Surveyor as to a watertight bulkhead coming as low as the deck under the upper deck - that will be, in this case, deck E. The only circumstances under which bulkheads may cease at deck E will be in that case where the loadline disc is placed lower than is required by Table C of the Freeboard Tables.
The Commissioner:
Do tell me, if you can, what was the fault of this ship?
Mr. Edwards:
What I say, my Lord, is this: First of all, your Lordship will see by that that the height of the bulkhead is to be determined by the loadline disc. The fact, in the case of the "Titanic" is that her bulkheads were completed eighteen months before the Board of Trade awarded or assigned her a loadline disc; so that instead of your having - as I shall submit on the figures in a moment - these bulkheads going right through to deck D - you had some of them terminating at deck E, and the importance of that your Lordship has already recognised by suggesting that Sir Robert Finlay -
The Commissioner:
Are we getting back to this - that the "Titanic" was an unseaworthy ship?
Mr. Edwards:
Quite, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
And that all the policies of insurance on her are void, just as I said yesterday - you cannot help that, of course - and as it was pointed out to me, every ship afloat of this kind is insured by such policies.
Mr. Edwards:
I quite recognise that, and that is one of the reasons why I have asked your Lordship to say that if these rules and regulations are a mere guide which may be applied at the discretion of the surveyors, then the technical experts may say that there was an error of judgment.
The Commissioner:
I wonder, if an action were brought upon one of these policies of insurance and the underwriters were to set up this as a defense for not paying, what a jury would say. I can tell you, you know what a jury would say; I know very well.
Mr. Edwards:
What I suggest is this, that when it went - as it is to be hoped under the circumstances it would go - to the highest tribunal of the land, what would be said would be -
The Commissioner:
I can tell you what the House of Lords would say - I know perfectly well what they would say.
Mr. Edwards:
I must not ask for a tip, my Lord; but I do seriously suggest on that point that the whole thing will turn upon whether these are binding regulations under the Merchant Shipping Act with which there must have been some compliance, or whether they were a mere guide upon which the surveyor is to exercise his discretion.
The Commissioner:
May I sum up what your contention is, as I understand it. You say, if they are mere guides to the surveyors, then the shipowners are not affected.
Mr. Edwards:
Quite.
The Commissioner:
But if they are requirements in the sense of imposing an obligation upon shipowners, the shipowners are affected.
Mr. Edwards:
That is so, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
And then you say, as I understand, if they are mere guides left to the surveyors, they ought not to be mere guides; they ought to be turned into binding rules and regulations. I think you said that.
Mr. Edwards:
Yes, my Lord. I did not say necessarily these particular things, but you ought to do away with that category of thing called a mere guide or suggestion and make regulations containing whatever the technical experts decide ought to be the proper thing. Before I go to the correspondence I do want to emphasise that point that, according to this Rule, the height of your bulkheads should be fixed according to what has been decided to be the loadline. In the case of the "Titanic," the bulkheads were finished and the ship was launched before there was any decision arrived at as to bulkheads.
The Commissioner:
As to the loadline.
Mr. Edwards:
Any decision arrived at as to the loadline, and that is borne out by the correspondence. The second point is this, that even when the loadline disc was fixed, it was fixed at such a point that under this rule the "Titanic" was not permitted to have bulkheads below D deck, that is the upper deck; in other words, that she was not, on the line fixed for the loadline disc, entitled to any abatement by this rule. My Lord, you have to refer now to a thing which is very complicated and very technical. Will your Lordship look at the correspondence? This is a matter which I suggest (I am going to submit my points upon it) will have to be quite carefully worked out and checked with regard to one factor. It is not a factor which, under any circumstances, is sufficient to vitiate my submission as to the loadline disc being fixed so low as not to justify any abatement in the height of the bulkhead, but it is a factor which may modify to some extent, and it is a factor with regard to which the materials are not in my possession to enable me to check the factor. If your Lordship will look at the rule, you will see, "when the loadline disc of the vessel is placed at least as low as is required by Table C of the freeboard tables," and so on. Your Lordship has, I think, the "Instructions to Surveyors as to Loadline."
The Commissioner:
Is that another pamphlet? I do not think we have this. (A copy was handed to his Lordship.) Now I have a copy.
Mr. Edwards:
Before you look in detail at that, will your Lordship please look at page 2 of the printed correspondence, headed, "The Collision Bulkhead of the s.s. 'Olympic.'" There is a letter there dated 30th April, from Mr. Archer, as follows: - "Sir, - The Surveyor's Report requesting instructions regarding the collision bulkhead of this vessel is forwarded.
"The Board's Regulations (Circular 1401) require that the collision bulkhead is in all cases to extend to the upper deck, but there is a provision that in vessels of the shelter deck type the deck next below the shelter deck may be regarded as the upper deck, subject to the sheer being sufficient. A shelter deck steamer (page 44 of freeboard tables) may for this purpose be defined as one having a greater freeboard, measured from the second deck, than required by Table C, and having all openings in the second deck battened down as on a weather deck. The Surveyor reports that the freeboard of this vessel, measured from the so-called 'upper' deck, will be about 10 feet 9 inches, but the freeboard required by Table C is about 11 feet 2 inches, as shown in detail on the attached sheet. The sheer will also be somewhat less than the standard, and there will be a large number of openings in the 'upper' deck. As the deck marked 'upper' will be nearer the water than the main or second deck of an awning deck vessel, it cannot be regarded as the 'upper' deck within the meaning of the circular. The surveyors should, I think, be instructed to inform the builders that the collision bulkhead must be carried up to the deck marked 'saloon deck,' and that no part of the bulkhead below this deck should be nearer the stern than 1/20 of the vessel's length as required by the circular referred to.
"It may be observed that in the event of the upper part of the bulkhead, where marked in red, being damaged by collision there would be some danger of water entering the space above the 'upper' deck, unless the weather conditions were unusually favourable, whence it would pass below down the open stairways."
Just below that you will see a table which gives the particulars. There is the draft of 34 feet 9 inches and freeboard to upper deck 10 feet 9 inches, making a total of 45 feet 6 inches. But the moulded depth is only 45 feet, because you take off 6 inches for the thickness of the deck, from which you measure, and also for the keel. Then you come to the moulded depth of 'upper' deck, 45 feet; then you assume a coefficient of 74 freeboard, Table A. = 13 feet, from which you deduct 3 feet 2 inches - I will show you why that is in a moment, my Lord - giving a total of 9 feet 10 inches with a length correction of 2 feet 1 inch, or a total of freeboard by Table C of 11 feet 11 inches for winter. You knock off 9 inches for summer, Summer, as your Lordship knows, extends from April to September, and as this ship was not sailing until April, it was summer. I am giving the freeboard required for summer of 11 feet 2 inches. The Surveyor reports that at the draft 34 feet 9 inches, the freeboard to upper deck will be 10 feet 9 inches, so that the freeboard to upper deck, less than Table C, is 5 inches. That is how the matter stood, my Lord. Then what happened was -
The Commissioner:
You have not finished, you know. Is the remainder immaterial?
Mr. Edwards:
No. You will see, if you look just below, that there was some difference in the measurements of the sheer, and Mr. Archer says that it is not material. It is not at all events material for the point which I now desire to make to your Lordship. Your Lordship will have to look at the whole of the correspondence directly.
Now may I ask your Lordship to jump the correspondence and go to, I think it is, the letter of the 20th June, on page 5?
The Commissioner:
To whom is it addressed?
Mr. Edwards:
It is from Harland and Wolff, and apparently it is addressed to the Assistant Secretary, Marine Department.
The Commissioner:
Of what - the Board of Trade?
Mr. Edwards:
Yes, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
I wish the Minutes said to whom it is addressed.
Mr. Edwards:
It was apparently sent to Mr. Carruthers.
The Commissioner:
It begins "Dear Sirs" - in the plural.
Mr. Edwards:
Yes, but that was the usual form of addressing the Board of Trade Surveyors at Belfast. If you look at the top of that page you will see another letter addressed, "Messrs. The Board of Trade Surveyors, Belfast."
The Commissioner:
Is this to the Board of Trade surveyors at Belfast?
Mr. Edwards:
Yes my Lord. If you will look at the letter you will see it says: "With reference to your letter of the 14th instant, as mentioned in our letter of the 3rd instant, we have been considering the question of the load draught of the above vessel, and as it seems probable that several difficulties may be overcome by our doing so, we are prepared to accept a freeboard slightly greater than Table C, say, about 1 inch greater, which will, we estimate, make the load draught about 34 feet 6 inches. The displacement corresponding to this is about 52,000 tons, and the tons per inch 143," and so on. Your Lordship probably has not the letter - it is one of the typewritten letters - but there is a letter dated the 17th May, 1911, of which the Board of Trade have handed me a copy. I can refer you to the same point in Mr. Archer's evidence, where he says that finally they were allowed a load draught of 34 feet 7 inches. Here you will see in the Board of Trade letter which I have read they give a load draught of 34 feet 9 inches. Harland and Wolff suggest an amendment which will give a load draught of 34 feet 6 inches, and finally they were given 34 feet 7 inches. If 34 feet 9 inches load draught gives a deficient freeboard, as is shown in the letter of the 30th April, of 5 inches, then a load draught of 34 feet 7 inches will give a deficiency of freeboard of 3 inches. But there was some mistake in the measurements. Now what I have to take your Lordship to is this. I have got to take your Lordship to Table C and show what in fact for this vessel ought to be the freeboard allowed. Has your Lordship Table C before you?
The Commissioner:
I have it before me. Can you tell me, Mr. Edwards, for my guidance, what a coefficient of fineness is?
Mr. Edwards:
If your Lordship will turn to -
The Commissioner:
I want to know can you tell me?
Mr. Edwards:
It is a certain allowance made for the ascertained buoyancy of the ship. That was the factor to which I was alluding. Messrs. Harland and Wolff contended in this case that it ought to have been a coefficient of fineness of72, and the Board of Trade contended, as you will see by the letter, that there ought to have been a coefficient of fineness allowed of74. Apparently there are not in this correspondence the figures which would determine what that coefficient of fineness should be -72 or74; and that was the point that I was rather putting would have to be worked out, if I may say so with respect, by one of your technical advisers. The difference on the total is not sufficient to upset what I am contending as to the deficiency of the loadline requirements. Now, my Lord, if you will look at page 75 of this Table C you will find certain measurements given there giving what should be the height of freeboard amidships, that is to say, "measured from top of main deck at side," varying according to the moulded depth, and the total length given in that table, if your Lordship will look at the fifth column, is, total length 408 feet, and total moulded depth 34 feet. If you will look at the last column your Lordship will see that for steamers above 34 feet moulded depth you have to deduct the following amount from the freeboards given in Table A to obtain the freeboard for Table C. Now your Lordship has to turn back, if you will, to Table A, on page 59; and if your Lordship will look at the sixth column it there gives the moulded depth of 45 feet. We know that the moulded depth of the "Titanic" was 45 feet, so that you have to take the freeboard in that column, if the allowance for the coefficient of fineness be72, of 12 feet 10 inches, less the deduction found on page 75 of Table C; and if74, then 13 feet, less the deduction provided on page 75. Having done that, you then have to turn back to Table C, and you will there find, fairly well down the page in the first column, a correction in inches which has to be made for a change of 10 feet in the length. You will therefore have to multiply by a figure which is given in the following column of8. If you multiply the difference between the figure of 540 feet on page 59 and the total length of the "Titanic" by8, you get at certain figures. I submit, my Lord, that if those figures are taken they will show that for this ship the required freeboard to the upper deck was 11 feet 1 inch; and that if you take the actual freeboard allowed in this ship it is a fraction under 11 feet. So that there will be the difference between that fraction under 11 feet and 11 feet 1 inch deficiency in freeboard.
The Commissioner:
It is a deficiency of 1 inch and how much?
Mr. Edwards:
It is a deficiency of 1 inch on 11 feet, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
No, it is a deficiency of 1 inch and a fraction of an inch.
Mr. Edwards:
Yes, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
Well, how much is it? Is it 1 3/4 inches, or 1 7/8 inches, or what?
Mr. Edwards:
It is6 or06 of an inch.
The Commissioner:
.06 is very different from6.
Mr. Edwards:
The reason, my Lord, is this. If you take the coefficient as contended by the Board of Trade as74, then it is a deficiency of about 2 inches. If you take the coefficient of72 as urged by Harland and Wolff, then it is a deficiency of 1.06 inches.
The Commissioner:
1.06 inches.
Mr. Edwards:
That is so, my Lord. Perhaps your Lordship would ask, so as to enable Prof. Biles or one of your technical advisers to get the thing worked out, for the necessary materials from Messrs. Harland and Wolff - or perhaps the Board of Trade have them - upon which to determine whether the coefficient should be72 or whether it should be74.
The Commissioner:
Does it make any difference for the purpose of your point whether it is72 or74? In either case, according to you, there was a mistake.
Mr. Edwards:
In either case there was.
The Commissioner:
Does it matter whether you take72 or74?
Mr. Edwards:
Except that it becomes a little more -
The Commissioner:
You aggravate it a little?
Mr. Edwards:
Yes, I do not object to that word, my Lord. So much, my Lord, for that point.
Now I am going to direct your Lordship's attention to the correspondence. This correspondence is not, as I told your Lordship, quite in consecutive order, and there are four letters here which your Lordship has not got. What I am going to do, my Lord, is to give you broadly the contents of the letters, and then ask your Lordship to direct that the letters be put in the proper order, so that your Lordship can look at them. I shall not take up the time of the Court in reading them. In these letters which are printed your Lordship will find that in the first place the Board of Trade surveyors did ask Messrs. Harland and Wolff to do a number of things. They asked that they should take the collision bulkhead fair up to the deck.
The Commissioner:
To what deck?
Mr. Edwards:
To the saloon deck, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
What is it called - what letter?
Mr. Laing:
D.
The Commissioner:
Did not they take it up to D?
Mr. Edwards:
Not fair, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
What do you mean by "fair"?
Mr. Edwards:
Instead of going straight up they stepped it 12 feet forward.
The Commissioner:
Is there any reason why they should not?
Mr. Edwards:
Except the view which, I think, you will find held by experts, that a bulkhead which is stepped has not the same resisting strength as a bulkhead that goes fair up. That is the first point.
Then, my Lord, I would call your Lordship's attention to two letters. On page 6 of the Collision Bulkhead correspondence there is a letter of the 20th July from Mr. Carruthers, the surveyor, to Messrs. Harland and Wolff: "With reference to my conversation with your Mr. Andrews regarding the collision bulkhead of this vessel, as you still object to extend the bulkhead on frame 134 up to the saloon deck, I have to suggest as an alternative that a bulkhead should be fitted between the upper and saloon decks at the after-end of the crew space - say, on frame No. 111, this bulkhead and also the upper deck between frames No. 111 and 134 being made practically watertight. The stairways leading to the lower crew space would require to be trunked up to the saloon deck and fitted with steel doors practically watertight, and any other openings in the upper deck, between frames No. 111 and No. 134 similarly trunked up." To which on the 21st July, 1910, Messrs. Harland and Wolff replied: "We are in receipt of your letter of 20th inst., for which we are obliged, and if it will finally satisfy the Board regarding this matter we see no objection, as you suggest, to making the present steel bulkhead, at the after-end of the crew space between the upper and saloon decks, on frame No. 111, watertight, which will serve the same purpose as if the collision bulkhead No. 134 had been carried straight up to the saloon deck instead of being cranked forward about 12 feet on to frame No. 140 as at present. We cannot, however, consider or see what material advantage could possibly be gained by trunking up between the upper and saloon decks the stairways, hatch, and other openings, and making the upper deck watertight forward of frame 112, as if the vessel were damaged forward of this watertight bulkhead, only No. 1 hold and the firemen's passage could become flooded, while the sketch we submitted to you some time ago shows that especially the forward bulkheads of these vessels, so arranged that there is a large margin of safety with any two compartments flooded." Then, apparently, the Board took the view of Messrs. Harland and Wolff up to a certain point, because you see a Minute of the Board appended: "The builders might be informed that the Board are pleased to note that a bulkhead will be fitted on frame 111 between the upper and saloon decks, but they still consider it desirable for the hatchway and spiral stairways to be trunked up to the saloon decks and made practically watertight. If, however, the builders are still unwilling to do this, they should submit a copy of their calculation of the trim of the vessel when the fore compartment is open to the sea, and the No. 1 compartment and firemen's passage are full of water up to the waterline." Now, my Lord, there is only one other letter to which I want to refer.
Continued >
