British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 30
Final Arguments
Mr. Edwards:
May it please your Lordship; yesterday I was speaking of the scheme of observations which I had intended to address to your Lordship, and although I have already, in consequence of your Lordship's intervention, dealt to some extent with the Board of Trade in regard to watertight decks, I have not dealt with the Board of Trade in regard to other matters. But there are two things which I think it will be well to get rid of entirely, and then to return to deal fully with the Board of Trade, as I had intended, as that will involve the questions of recommendations and the future.
One point I was coming to immediately yesterday, but which I do not propose to deal with very fully, is the matter of the "Californian." As the case has now presented itself I shall submit that there is really no substantial element of doubt that the lights which were unquestionably seen from the deck of the "Californian" were the lights of the "Titanic," and that the explanation of the Captain of the "Californian." Captain Lord, that he thought possibly they might have been private signals cannot be treated otherwise than the merest idle excuse. There is not a particle of justification in his evidence for his suggestion that they might possibly have been private signals. Your Lordship will perhaps bear in mind in this connection that a question was asked, I think by myself, of Mr. Sanderson, as to whether the International Mercantile Marine Company controlling the Leyland line did issue to the Leyland line a copy of these Sailing Instructions. In these Sailing Instructions on page 23, there are these particulars given as to distress signals: "The following signals numbered 1, 2 and 3 when used or displayed together or separately shall be deemed to be signals of distress at night (1.) a gun fired at intervals of about a minute. (2.) Flames on the ship as from a burning tar barrel, oil barrel, etc. (3.) Rockets or shells of any colour or description fired one at a time at short intervals."
The Commissioner:
I will tell you what I think the "Californian" will attempt to say that having regard to the bearings these lights cannot have been the lights of the "Titanic." I expect you are not prepared to deal with that.
Mr. Edwards:
Yes, my Lord, I was, but it is perfectly clear that the learned Attorney-General must deal pretty fully with the matter. But what I was coming to was this, and it was rather from that point of view, that so far as the question may arise as to whether those were the signals of distress of the "Titanic" in fact, or whether they were the signals of distress of another ship, so far as the personal conduct of the responsible Captain of the "Californian" is concerned, his conduct, I shall submit, is equally reprehensible.
The Commissioner:
I think, you know, he is going to say, or it will be said on his behalf, rather, that these signals were not distress signals at all, necessarily; that they were ship's signals.
Mr. Edwards:
That, of course, my Lord, is what he has already endeavoured to say in evidence; but I think, in face of the two main facts, the first that the Officer Groves, in reply to your Lordship, did say in specific terms that in the light of all the facts he had not the slightest doubt that the signals which were seen were the signals of the "Titanic" -
The Commissioner:
I do not want to stop you, but I think the onus of proof in this matter is upon the "Californian." I think for myself - I do not speak with absolute certainty for my colleagues - that it will be for the "Californian" to satisfy us that those were not the signals of the "Titanic"; whether they will succeed I cannot say, but I think you may leave it.
Mr. Edwards:
Then I will not carry the matter further with regard to that. Then there is the question upon which I feel a certain degree of special personal responsibility, and that is the evidence as to the conduct of those in boat No. 1. Having examined on a certain line, I feel it is only due to the Court that I should in the fewest possible words indicate to the Court what in the four corners of that which is relevant I believe to be the effect of the evidence with regard to that boat. As your Lordship will remember, it is No. 1 boat, that in which the skipper was a man named Symons. There were seven of the crew, and there were five passengers, Sir Cosmo Duff-Gordon, Lady Duff-Gordon, Miss Francatelli and two others. Now the broad facts with regard to that particular boat are these, that she was not in any way undermanned, and that she had accommodation for some 28 more passengers than, in fact, she carried. The real responsibility, at all events the primary responsibility, so far as this Enquiry is concerned, will necessarily be that of the member of the crew who was in charge of that boat, and any conduct that there may have been, however reprehensible, however abhorrent we might think it, will not be relevant except in so far as it may have been done in order to affect, or may have affected, the mind and the judgment and the conduct of the man responsible for the conduct of the boat. As the evidence stands, the position is this: - Here was a boat a little away from the ship, not so far away but what the cries of those who were struggling in the water could be heard; that they were in fact heard; that Hendrickson said -
The Commissioner:
Before you go to what happened in the boat, is not there some evidence that the boat was to stand by the ship?
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
That is to say evidence of what happened on board the "Titanic" before that boat cleared from the ship?
Mr. Edwards:
That is so.
The Commissioner:
Just remind me of that.
Mr. Edwards:
Yes, my Lord.
The Attorney-General:
It is Question 11488. It is the orders not to go far from the ship, but to stand by.
The Commissioner:
That is what I meant.
The Attorney-General:
It is page 257.
The Commissioner:
How you carry the numbers of these questions in your head passes my comprehension.
The Attorney-General:
I do not profess to carry the numbers in my head, my Lord. I happen to have it before me. I worked it out this morning. "My orders were to pull away from the ship not too far, and to stand by if I was called back."
The Commissioner:
That is what I want.
Mr. Edwards:
That is in Symons' evidence, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
Now you can pass on from that and go on to what you were saying. The boat leaves the ship with instructions to stand by near the ship.
Mr. Edwards:
That of itself imposes quite explicitly upon Symons, the skipper, the duty of standing by. The next point is that there is the fullest possible knowledge conveyed to those in the boat when the "Titanic" sinks, that there are a large number of people struggling in the water. The evidence then passes to what Hendrickson says, that he suggested that they should return, and not that Hendrickson said it, but that somebody suggested it is corroborated by two of the Witnesses. Then the evidence passes to a statement that some one of the ladies, identified by one of the Witnesses as Lady Duff-Gordon, appealed that they should not, as they might be swamped. So far as that particular matter for the moment is concerned, I do not propose passing any comment at all upon what might have been said under the circumstances of horror there by a woman. But we then pass from that point to this, that Sir Cosmo Duff-Gordon - he denies it - approved of his wife's opposition.
We then pass to the main fact that there was no attempt to go back. Whether what Sir Cosmo Duff-Gordon says is true or not, your Lordship will bear in mind that it did represent his mental attitude at that time. Whether he gave utterance to it in words that they should not go back or not, it did represent his mental attitude as given in evidence in answer to a question that I myself put to him. What he says is this: He denies that he said anything of that sort, but he says he was so absorbed in his attentions to his wife that he could not think of anything. When I put it to him whether he could not think of going back to help these struggling people, he said, "No," that did not cross his mind; but within 20 minutes or half-an-hour of the "Titanic" going down, and while, therefore, as we have from independent evidence, the screams of the drowning could be heard, we have it on Sir Cosmo Duff-Gordon's own admission that he did say to the men that he would give them £5 a piece to replace their kit.
It is an unpleasant task, but what I am going to say, and to say quite fearlessly, is this: That a state of mind which, while within the hearing of the screams of the drowning, could think and express so material a matter as the giving of money to replace the kit, is a state of mind which must have contemplated the position in which those drowning people were; it is a state of mind which must have contemplated the fact that there were vacant places in the boat; it is a state of mind which must have contemplated the possibility of rescuing some of those drowning, and it is a state of mind which must have contemplated the dangers admittedly incidental to the operation. I am not going to say that there was a blunt, crude bargain of bribery, that there was a deal done with these men, "If you will not go back I will give you £5." Nothing of the sort. But what I am going to suggest is that the right and true inference to draw from all these circumstances is this, that that money was offered at that time, under those circumstances, to give such a sense of ascendancy, of importance, of supremacy, to Sir Cosmo Duff-Gordon in the boat, with the view, to which I say, on the evidence, he gave expression, that they should not go back as would weigh more with the men than if he had simply given it as a naked piece of advice and recommendation apart from that.
The Attorney-General:
The order of events is quite wrong there, surely, is it not?
The Commissioner:
I followed it, and I did not want to interrupt, but I would like you, Mr. Edwards, if it is convenient for you, to indicate to me the question and answer which justifies each one of your statements. I should like to examine you, but that is irregular. I should like to ask you a few questions; first, tell me when this boat was launched into the water - the time, if there is any evidence about it.
Mr. Edwards:
That I can give your Lordship, I think.
The Commissioner:
I daresay I can find it out myself.
Mr. Edwards:
Your Lordship will find it, I think, on the last page of the boat list analysis.
The Commissioner:
That is the boat list analysis which has been handed up to me, is it?
Mr. Edwards:
Yes.
The Attorney-General:
I do not think it gives the time, which was your Lordship's question. It gives the order, but not the time. Your Lordship will not find it there.
The Commissioner:
It is not here, I see at once.
Mr. Edwards:
It is in Officer Lowe's evidence, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
I want to know the time.
The Attorney-General:
I can tell your Lordship and my friend, because we have looked into it.
The Commissioner:
I am told it is in Lowe's evidence.
The Attorney-General:
Yes; about 10 minutes to a quarter past one, as far as I can fix the time. I have looked into it, and that is about it. You cannot be precise.
The Commissioner:
Can you give me any passage in the evidence which supports that statement?
The Attorney-General:
Yes, I can. It will require a little looking into.
The Commissioner:
I am told it is in Lowe's evidence.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, I think Lowe gave it. It is very difficult to make out the times of the boats.
Mr. Edwards:
I think you will find it on page 367. He gives the order in which those boats went off.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, but he does not give the time; it is a little later that he gives the time.
Mr. Edwards:
Question 15818.
The Attorney-General:
That is the order; my Lord wants the time.
The Commissioner:
At Question 15793 he is asked about the time he did something, and he said "I have not the remotest idea of the time right throughout."
The Attorney-General:
My impression is he says nothing about the time. He gives the order of the boats 7, 5, 3 and 1; that is the order in which the boats were lowered, but there is nothing about time. You have really to work it out from the evidence of other persons as to what time those boats were lowered. That is the only way you can get at it, and it is a complicated business, and, of course, it must be unreliable.
The Commissioner:
Yes, it is unreliable, anyway.
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
But now let us assume for the moment that it can be shown that this boat was lowered at 1.15.
The Attorney-General:
It was about that.
The Commissioner:
Let us assume that; I do not know that it can be established, but let us begin with 1.15 as the time that the boat was lowered. Now, the ship went down an hour afterwards, 2.20 or thereabouts, and therefore they were in the boat for an hour. Is there any evidence to show what they were doing during that hour?
Mr. Edwards:
There is some evidence that they were pulling and then resting on their oars. That is Hendrickson's evidence.
The Commissioner:
Were they obeying the directions which had been given when the boat was lowered, that they were to stand by the ship?
Mr. Edwards:
That will depend, I think, entirely upon whether they were pulling away, and not coming back, or whether they were moving backwards and forwards.
The Commissioner:
My notion is they were just moving on their oars, not going any distance away, but keeping about the ship, because at 2.20 they were near enough to the ship to hear the cries of the people in the water. They did hear them.
The Attorney-General:
That is right, my Lord; that is Hendrickson's evidence, certainly. I think it is everybody's, really.
The Commissioner:
My recollection is that they heard the cries of the people in the water, and, therefore, wherever they had been in the meantime, at the time the "Titanic" went down they were near the ship.
Mr. Edwards:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
That is right?
Mr. Edwards:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
Now, here are some questions to Symons, which you will find at page 267 at Question 11500: "And did you see the 'Titanic' go down? - (A.) Yes, I watched her. (Q.) Now, just tell us about that? - (A.) After I left the ship I gave the order to pull away. We were pulling very hard; we were pulling very steady; a moderate pull. After I gave that order we pulled away, I should say, about 200 yards, and I told them to lay on their oars, and just a little while after that, after I saw that the ship was doomed, I gave the order to pull a little further, and so escape the suction." Now, if that evidence is true, it is true that at the time the ship was going down they were close to it, so close to it that Symons feared the effect of the suction; and, therefore, it seems to point to this, that the boat did keep near to the ship. Well, now then, where do you get your 20 minutes after 2.20, when the ship went down?
Mr. Edwards:
That is in the evidence of Sir Cosmo Duff-Gordon, my Lord.
The Attorney-General:
Question 12586 is the promise of money, on page 263.
The Commissioner:
What I am upon is when the money was promised; I know it was promised.
Mr. Edwards:
Yes, Question 12586. "(A.) There was a man sitting next to me, and of course in the dark I could see nothing of him. I never did see him, and I do not know yet who he was. I suppose it would be some time when they rested on their oars, 20 minutes or half-an-hour after the 'Titanic' had sunk, a man said to me: 'I suppose you have lost everything?" and so on. That is the time fixed; it is fixed by Sir Cosmo Duff-Gordon himself.
The Commissioner:
That is sufficient; it is 20 minutes to half-an-hour.
Mr. Edwards:
Yes, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
As far as that Witness remembers the matter; so that you get it now about a quarter to three in the morning.
Mr. Edwards:
Yes. The learned Attorney-General suggested that I was not giving the matter quite in its correct sequence.
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
Mr. Edwards:
On this matter I am supremely anxious to be scrupulously careful.
The Attorney-General:
I will tell my friend what I mean. I was saying it, my Lord, because Mr. Duke is not here, and in consequence of what your Lordship said the other day one has to be a little careful about these statements. If I follow my friend's argument, it was that this promise had been made and that this promise actuated the man Symons and the others in not going back; that the promise of money showed what was in the mind of Sir Cosmo Duff-Gordon; and although my friend did not say that it was a bribe, still he said it gave him an ascendancy - that was the expression used - a supremacy over the men. If that means anything, it means they did not go back when they heard the cries, because of the promise of money. My impression of the evidence, and I think it is borne out, is that they did not go back. That was the point I had in mind when I interrupted my friend. Before that they did not go back. That all happened before the promise of money at all. The promise of money was afterwards; that is, as I understand the order. That is the point between us. Of course, it is very important.
Mr. Edwards:
You mean, from whatever cause, they might have gone back even before the lapse of the 20 minutes if there was any real intention on their part to go back.
The Attorney-General:
Quite.
Mr. Edwards:
So that with whatever object the promise may have been made, it could not, at all events, have operated as an inducement for them not to go back, at all events, in the first place?
The Attorney-General:
That is what I mean.
The Commissioner:
That certainly was the effect of Sir Cosmo's evidence.
Mr. Edwards:
I still submit that the right inference to be drawn, as shown by the evidence of Officer Lowe, by the evidence of Joughin, the head baker, and by the evidence of others, is that at the time, the 20 minutes or half-an-hour that is referred to in Sir Cosmo's evidence, a time at which it would have been perfectly useless to render service, the fact remains that there was no attempt on the part of this boat to go back. Whether the money had the actual effect of shaking the men's intention, or whether they had no intention, or, perhaps it is better to put it, whether Symons had no intention at any time of going back, or whether he was affected, is a matter which your Lordship will have to decide. I am not going to leave it there, because I am going to the evidence of Symons, which is essentially unsatisfactory. One cannot help recalling to your Lordship's mind the effect of the very severe examination by the learned Attorney-General, of Symons. He came into the box; he gave utterance to expressions about being Master of the situation, his sole discretion, and so on, and then it turned out that each one of these phrases had been derived from somebody who saw him on behalf of the relatives of Sir Cosmo Duff-Gordon. I suggest that you can put aside entirely for that reason the evidence of Symons, and treat the whole question upon the basis of the evidence of the other people. Now, there it is: I submit, notwithstanding what has been suggested by the learned Attorney-General, that the right inference is this, that with a view of securing - I use the term advisedly - an ascendancy over the mind of Symons and the others, at this given moment this monetary offer was made.
I was interrupted when I was saying that if he was in such a state of mind as, surrounded by all those circumstances of horror and suffering, he could suggest some ministration to the later material wants of the sailors by offering them £5 a piece, he was in a state of mind where he must have been able to, and did, contemplate all the circumstances, especially the circumstance of possible danger that there might have been in the operation.
There is another side, and that is this: that if, with ladies in the boat, he himself thought there was grave danger in going back, why was there no attempt made to go to other boats which were in the vicinity, to get rid of the ladies, and then to utilise that boat and go back? So much for that part. Here is the fact upon which your Lordship will have to determine - that there were 28 vacant places in that boat, and no single person in that boat had a right, I submit, to save his life at the expense of those vacant places. I ought, perhaps, to put it that no one of them had the right, the moral right I mean, to save their own life merely by avoiding the possible risk that was involved in utilising those 28 vacant places. I am going to ask your Lordship to say that the conduct of Symons is to be condemned; I am going to ask your Lordship to say at least that, under the circumstances such as were present in and around this boat, it is most reprehensible conduct that there should have been any offer of gift in cash or kind which is calculated to influence the minds of the men and seduce them from a sense of their duty, whether it was in fact done with that intention or not.
The next circumstance with which I feel there is a special obligation upon me to deal - again because of the line I took in examination - is in regard to the personal incident of Mr. Ismay after the ship had been struck. Yesterday I was submitting a series of facts upon the evidence, going to show that Mr. Ismay did not occupy the position of an ordinary passenger. That evidence to which I called attention yesterday is still further supplemented by the evidence in regard to what Mr. Ismay did immediately after the accident. On his own showing, and on the evidence of others, the position is this, that he did take upon himself to assist in getting women and children into the boats.
Mr. Ismay has given an account of what happened, and of his state of mind. He says that when he left he knew that the "Titanic" was doomed; he says that when he left he knew that there were hundreds of people upon the ship; he says that he did not know, in fact, whether there were women and children left; he says that when he got into the boat there were no persons on the boat deck, at least on his side of the boat deck. He is asked whether he made any attempt to see if there were other people either on the other side of the deck or down below. He says personally that he did not. He was asked whether he gave instructions to others, and he said, "No."
Now, if the question did not involve large matters of principle of grave import, the question, so far as this Enquiry is concerned, as to whether one life should be saved at the expense of another would be immaterial. But I do submit that a gentleman occupying the position which Mr. Ismay occupied, the Managing Director of this Company, a gentleman who had taken upon himself the duty of assisting at the boats in regard to women and children, had certain special and further duties.
I submit, in the first place, that he had no more right to save his life at the expense of any single person aboard that ship than the Captain would have had. I go further and I say this, and say it emphatically, that he did not discharge his duty at that particular moment, at that particular critical time, by merely taking a cursory glance round the starboard side of the boat deck to see if there was any person upon it. He was one of the few persons at that moment who had been placed in possession of the positive knowledge that the ship was doomed, and I say, and say emphatically, occupying his great official position, that his duty was to make both by himself, and as he had taken the duty of looking after women and children, to see that someone else too, made, a search elsewhere than in the immediate vicinity of that deck, to see if there were women and children who had not been found and brought up.
The Commissioner:
My recollection is that according to his evidence he jumped into the boat as it was being lowered.
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
Mr. Edwards:
That is so, my Lord. Of course, according to the other evidence, to which I myself called Mr. Ismay's attention, it was that he had got into the boat first, and was himself helping the women and children into it. But for the purpose of the principle which I am now submitting, I say that it matters not whether he had got into the boat at an early stage to help the women and children in, or whether he jumped in at that moment. I say that his duty was to have gone and searched and helped to find some of those women and children who, in fact, he knew were left on the ship when it went down.
The Commissioner:
You are talking, of course, of a moral duty.
Mr. Edwards:
Yes, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
You cannot be talking about any legal duty.
Mr. Edwards:
No, my Lord. He was not an officer of the ship; he was not a member of the crew; he stands, of course, in a special category by himself. If the matter began and ended with Mr. Ismay's conduct, it might be left where it was, but if we are to have managing directors, or other persons commercially responsible for these liners, going aboard ship and taking upon themselves certain functions there, it ought to be clearly laid down that they do it, taking upon themselves further and special moral obligations and duties to the passengers than are possessed by one passenger to another passenger.
I should not have attempted to have gone back to this matter, but should have left it where it was in the evidence, if it had not been that at the time I was examining Mr. Ismay, your Lordship said that what I had put to him was rather a matter for observation when I came to address your Lordship, than it was for a question; and I felt that I could not, either in duty to the Court or to myself, leave the matter without putting frankly in the form of an observation, as I have done, what I had put to Mr. Ismay in the form of a question.
The Commissioner:
Now, before you leave it, will you tell me to what part of this Enquiry the moral duty and the discharge of the moral duty of Mr. Ismay is relevant. I am not at all disposed to enter into the consideration of moral duty and the discharge of moral duty in connection with this Enquiry unless I see that such consideration is relevant to it.
Mr. Edwards:
Put in that form, it brings it down to this: You are asked in this Enquiry about the relative proportions of the different classes who have been saved. I think it is Question 20: "What was the number of (a.) passengers, (b.) crew taken away in each boat on leaving the vessel? How was this number made up, having regard to: 1. Sex. 2. Class. 3. Rating? How many were children and how many adults? Did each boat carry its full load, and, if not, why not?" Then 21 is "How many persons on board the 'Titanic' at the time of the casualty were ultimately rescued, and by what means? How many lost their lives? Of those rescued, how many have since died? What was the number of passengers, distinguishing between men and women and adults and children, of the first, second and third classes respectively who were saved? What was the number of the crew, discriminating their ratings and sex, that were saved? What is the proportion which each of these numbers bears to the corresponding total number on board immediately before the casualty? What reason is there for the disproportion, if any?"
The only one relevant to this would be, and, of course, very technically, that your Lordship could say that a passenger might have taken a place in the boat occupied by Mr. Ismay; a woman might have been found to take the place in the boat occupied by him; one of the 53 children might have been found to take the place in the boat occupied by him if he had recognised his special position and gone in search of them. I am not saying whether your Lordship should say that or not, but, at all events, that would make the questions perfectly relevant.
The Commissioner:
I do not agree with you at present. It might be argued that there was a moral duty upon other men on board to take care that a woman took precedence of him in the boats, and I might, if I sat here to enquire into such questions, have to enquire into the discharge by every male passenger of that moral duty. I do not think I can deal with moral duties.
Mr. Edwards:
I should not have mentioned it, my Lord, if you had not asked me in what way I thought the matter could be made relevant. If your Lordship had not said when I was questioning Mr. Ismay (I may have been irrelevant then) that it was a matter which ought to be addressed by way of observation to your Lordship, rather than as a question, I frankly should not have returned to it at this stage of the proceedings. Whatever view is to be taken as to personal conduct in relation to the particular duty cast upon your Lordship in this Enquiry, the matter is of comparatively trivial importance.
Now I return to the question of the Board of Trade. I do not know whether your Lordship has these before you, but there are two bundles of correspondence which have been printed by the Board of Trade. Unfortunately, they have not been printed quite in the order in which they should; they are not quite in order of date, and there are certain letters omitted, copies of which have been given to me in typewritten form. I do not know that I need trouble your Lordship to read all these letters.
The Commissioner:
Have I them, Mr. Attorney?
Continued >
