British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 31
Final Arguments
Sir Robert Finlay:
My Lord, I was calling attention yesterday to the evidence of the practice as to keeping speed although ice was reported, and I had begun by reading a portion of the evidence of Mr. Lightoller. I think I was reading at page 329 when the Court adjourned. I will complete reading the passage I was upon, and one other short passage in the evidence of Mr. Lightoller before I call attention, as shortly as possible, to the other evidence on this point. I read Question 14394 yesterday, and some discussion arose upon it with regard to the Officer on the bridge having seen the iceberg at the same time apparently as the look-out men. Then Question 14395 is: "I take it then that your position is to justify the conduct of the Captain and those who were navigating the "Titanic" from 11 o'clock till the collision? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) In going ahead at 21 1/2 knots, although you all knew that you were in the presence of ice? - (A.) Well, you hardly state it correctly when you say we knew we were in the presence of ice. We did not; we only had reports to go on. (Q.) You had no reason to disbelieve those reports? - (A.) On the contrary, we had, having so many years gone across and never seen ice though it is repeatedly reported. (Q.) I suggest to you it would have been a much safer thing to have believed the reports which you had from a number of sources as to the presence of ice than to have acted in disregard of the warnings you had received from, other ships, and gone ahead at the rate of 21 1/2 knots an hour until the collision occurred? - (A.) In the view of after events, of course, we form a totally different opinion. It would naturally have been safer, we can see now, not to have gone ahead at all." It is not correct to suggest, as that question does, that they disregarded the warnings of ice; on the contrary, the Captain gave strict injunctions to keep a careful look-out for ice. He followed the practice, which had been universally followed, of not slackening speed, but special caution was given to everyone to be on the look-out for ice, and the Captain, your Lordship will recollect, gave an injunction to the Officer left in charge of the bridge that if there was the slightest haze coming on or anything of that kind, he should be called at once. He went into the chart room, close by.
The Commissioner:
No precautions were taken with the exception of that direction to keep a careful look-out?
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
There was nothing else done?
Sir Robert Finlay:
Nothing else, I suggest, could be done in conformity with the ordinary practice.
The Commissioner:
It has been said by some gentlemen who have been in the witness-box that it would be a proper thing to put a man - one, at all events - in the eyes of the ship.
Sir Robert Finlay:
That suggestion has been made, my Lord, and I have a full note of the Witnesses who dealt with that point, to which I propose calling your Lordship's attention. At the present moment I will merely say that in the cases where a man was put in the bows of a ship usually there was only one man in the crow's-nest. They said they doubled the look-out, but, the evidence here was that the crow's-nest was a better place in the "Titanic" for seeing from than the bows would have been.
The Commissioner:
You will point out that evidence.
Sir Robert Finlay:
If your Lordship pleases.
The Commissioner:
The advantage of putting a man in the bows of the ship, as I understand, is this, that it brings him nearer to the object.
Sir Robert Finlay:
A little nearer it does.
The Commissioner:
And nearer to the waterline.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I was going to say, the great advantage of having a man in the bows is where you have a boat where the stem is only 14 feet from the water, as in the "Nimrod," Sir Ernest. Shackleton's boat. There, as he says, you see an iceberg much better if you are near the waterline, and you are there; but here the difference is only 30 feet. The stem, I suppose, is 60 feet above the water, and the crow's-nest is some 30 feet higher.
The Attorney-General:
I thought 40 feet from the deck was the evidence.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Not from the forecastle.
The Attorney-General:
From the well deck, you mean.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I think so. All I mean is that the great object of having a man on the stem ceases to exist when you have got a stem as high as it is necessarily in a vessel like the "Titanic." The conditions are absolutely different from those of the "Nimrod." In certain other cases, of course, they put a man on the stem, having one man in the crow's-nest. Of course, my Lord, it is a very vexed question whether it is better to have your two men together or only one man at each place. Your Lordship called attention at this point, I think, as the case was going on, and there is a good deal to be said either way. On the whole I submit that the balance inclines in favour of the practice of having two men, because they are a certain check on one another. They may talk but, on the other hand, if a man is by himself he may doze, and undoubtedly two pairs of eyes are better than one; and no man is likely to go to sleep if his fellow is there by his side, seeing what he is doing. I admit the point may be an arguable one, but my submission is that, on the whole, the practice on the "Titanic" was the sounder practice in having the two men together.
Then Question 14399: "And that is what, at all events, in the light of your present knowledge, good seamanship would have dictated? - (A.) Not necessarily good seamanship. (Q.) Extra good seamanship? - (A.) No, not seamanship at all. (Q.) In the light of the experience you have had it is what you would do now? - (A.) In the view of our reports we have had in other voyages, if I say in the light of good seamanship or extra good seamanship, we should have stopped, the thousands of ships that have crossed the Atlantic would likewise have stopped, and then you come to the end of your tether. (Q.) I do not say they would have stopped? - (A.) Well, or slowed down." I need not read further on that page. Then on page 330, and this is the last passage I propose to read from Mr. Lightoller's evidence at Question 14413 - I must read the answer immediately preceding, "I do not say I should bang on at all," that was the phrase in the question - " I do not approve of the term banging on. (Q.) I mean drive ahead? - (A.) That looks like carelessness, you know; it looks as if we would recklessly bang on and slap her into it regardless of anything. Undoubtedly we should not do that. (Q.) What I want to suggest to you is that it was recklessness, utter recklessness, in view of the conditions which you have described as abnormal, and in view of the knowledge you had from various sources that ice was in your immediate vicinity, to proceed at 21 1/2 knots? - (A.) Then all I can say is that recklessness applies to practically every commander and every ship crossing the Atlantic Ocean. (Q.) I am not disputing that with you, but can you describe it yourself as other than recklessness? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Is it careful navigation, in your view? - (A.) It is ordinary navigation which embodies careful navigation. (Q.) Is this your position, then; that even with the experience of the "Titanic" disaster, if you were coming within the near vicinity of a place which was reported to you to be abounding in ice, you would proceed with a ship like the "Titanic" at 21 1/2 knots? - (A.) I do not say I should. (Q.) At nighttime, and at a time when the conditions were what you have described as very abnormal, surely you would not go on at 21 1/2 knots? - (A.) The conditions were not apparent to us in the first place; the conditions of an absolutely flat sea were not apparent to us till afterwards. Naturally I should take precautions against such an occurrence."
With regard to the question which is implied in what Mr. Scanlan said there as to what he would do in the future, may I say this, that of course by the light of this very great calamity it may be that your Lordship may see your way to making some recommendation with regard to the future. I feel sure, having regard to what has fallen from your Lordship, in the course of this case, that no such recommendation will at all trench upon what must always be, as your Lordship pointed out, the great security in cases of this kind, namely, the vigilance and judgment of the Commander of the ship. No rigid Rule can be laid down; but I am perfectly certain (and I think I speak not only for those whom I represent, but for everyone sailing the seas) that any recommendation which the Court may make with regard to the future will, of course, receive the most respectful and the most careful attention from those engaged in this traffic. What I am upon is this, that with all respect I say that it is impossible upon this evidence to say that there was any negligence on the part of those who were on board the "Titanic," and who were merely following that practice which had been followed by everyone engaged in the Atlantic trade for a long series of years, and followed, as the statistics show, with most excellent results in the way of absence of casualty.
Then Question 14419 is: "And what precautions would you take if you would not slow up or slow down? - (A.) I did not say I would not slow up. (Q.) Cannot you say whether you would or not? - (A.) No, I am afraid I could not say right here what I should do. I should take every precaution, whatever appealed to me. (Q.) I suggest to you, if you acted carefully and prudently, you would slow up, and that if you did not slow up you would be acting recklessly. You know you have described the conditions of abnormality as having been apparent at the time while you were on your watch. You have told my Lord that at great length; and in your conversations with the Captain did not you discuss that? You have said that you did not recognise that the sea was flat. I want to recall this to your mind." Then the Note is read to him first with regard to freezing - a conversation with the Commander on the bridge about the cold, and he says: "We then commenced to speak about the weather. He said, "There is not much wind." I said, "No, it is a flat calm, as a matter of fact." He repeated it; he said, "A flat calm." I said, "Yes, quite flat, there is no wind." I said something about it was rather a pity the breeze had not kept up whilst we were going through the ice region. Of course, my reason was obvious; he knew I meant the water ripples breaking on the base of the berg? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Was not all that amply sufficient to let you and the Captain know that you were in circumstances of extreme danger? - (A.) No. (Q.) I do not think anything would convince you that it was dangerous that night? - (A.) I have been very much convinced that it was dangerous. (Q.) I mean that the conditions you have described were dangerous? - (A.) They proved to be. (Q.) What I want to suggest is that the conditions having been so dangerous, those in charge of the vessel were negligent in proceeding at that rate of speed? - (A.) No."
Now, the whole of those questions ignore the fact, which I shall show on the evidence existed, namely, this: that those on the bridge of the "Titanic" could not from that height know that there was this absence of swell which was the fatal feature in the tragedy. That there was no wind, they knew; that there was no swell, they did not know, because, as has been said, you cannot, looking down from that height, see that there is no swell, and it was only when the boats were lowered into the water that they saw that it was an oily sea, perfectly flat and no swell, a condition, which, as Sir Ernest Shackleton, I think, said, might never occur again.
The Commissioner:
Do you draw a distinction between no wind and no swell?
Sir Robert Finlay:
My Lord, the terms are not always used with perfect accuracy. Sometimes the term is used in one way and sometimes in another, but the idea I wish to convey is this, as was explained, I think, by Mr. Lightoller, in answer to a question put by your Lordship, that although they knew there was an absence of wind, they did not and could not know that there was no swell. If there had been a swell there would have been the water breaking at the foot of the berg, though not to the same extent.
The Commissioner:
Are you sure of that?
Sir Robert Finlay:
So he says, my Lord. That is all the evidence.
The Commissioner:
It occurs to me that a mere swell would not cause any breaking of water.
Sir Robert Finlay:
The evidence is that it would.
The Commissioner:
If the evidence states it I must be guided by the evidence.
Sir Robert Finlay:
If your Lordship pleases.
The Commissioner:
And by what my colleagues advise me. But what I mean is this; apparently in the conversation with the Captain, Lightoller pointed out that there was what he calls a perfectly flat calm.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
And then you want to say that is consistent with there having been a swell?
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
That is my difficulty; is it consistent with a swell?
Sir Robert Finlay:
I think your Lordship will find it is on looking at another part of Mr. Lightoller's evidence. I will turn aside now, if your Lordship thinks it desirable, to go into that.
The Commissioner:
No, I would rather you went on.
Sir Robert Finlay:
It is in the recollection of my friend, the Attorney-General, as well as my own, that Mr. Lightoller said distinctly that they could not from the deck see the absence of swell, and that if there had been a swell there would have been a breaking of the rollers at the bottom of the berg. On that point may I recall to your Lordship one passage in Sir Ernest Shackleton's evidence at page 720, Question 25063? The Attorney-General puts this question to Sir Ernest: "According to the evidence - I am only dealing with one part of it - perhaps the most striking part - during the afternoon on this particular occasion on 14th April of this year, the temperature was reported to be falling so much so that the Captain ordered the carpenter to see that the water in his tanks did not freeze. Would that be any indication to you? - (A.) If I knew what the mean temperature of that locality was for that month of the year, and there was a great variation, then I would certainly think there was some abnormal disturbance in the ice to the North. Of course, that particular night was an abnormal night at sea in being a flat calm; it is a thing that might never occur again. (Q.) That is what Mr. Lightoller says. You say apparently it is very rare to get such a flat calm as there was that night? - (A.) I only remember it once or twice in about 20 years' experience - the sea absolutely calm, without a swell, as it was recorded to have been."
The Commissioner:
We know, or we have been told - whether it is true or not is another matter - that the water soon after the calamity was so smooth, with so little motion on it, that the boats which were lowered into it were not lifted sufficiently to disengage them from the tackles.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
That appears to me to support the view you are putting forward. It is suggested to me that the swell would not possibly affect the bottom of the berg, it would not lift it, because the bulk of the berg down below would not be affected by the swell.
Sir Robert Finlay:
No, but what I do say is this: I think there is evidence in support of what I am saying, and I do not think there is any evidence to the contrary, that where you have a swell on a great body of ice like a berg the swell will break upon it just as it would upon a rock.
The Commissioner:
There seems to be some difference of opinion amongst my colleagues about that.
Sir Robert Finlay:
The evidence is all one way upon that point, and your Lordship sees the importance Sir Ernest Shackleton attached to it. What he says in the two answers I have just read is perfectly clear to show that in his opinion the absence of swell was a most important factor, and it can only have been in this way, that if there had been a swell you would have had the same thing happening -
The Commissioner:
That must be what he means.
Sir Robert Finlay:
There is a great deal of other evidence about it which I will call attention to presently.
The Commissioner:
My attention has been drawn again to the evidence that Gill gave. Gill was on the "Californian," and he says at page 433, at the bottom (18179.), "(Q.) While you were in your cabin did you hear the noise of ice? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) What kind of noise was it? - (A.) A grinding noise. (Q.) Grinding against your ship's side?" This is field ice, of course.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
"Yes; I was as close to the ship's side as I am to you; it kept me awake; I could not sleep for it. (Q.) Was it a noise of thick field ice? - (A.) No, just a grinding, rubbing noise."
Sir Robert Finlay:
The "Californian" was at a distance which is variously estimated; it certainly was not nearer than seven miles.
The Commissioner:
That may be, but it appears to me that if you had a swell seven miles away -
Sir Robert Finlay:
Oh, but that might take place without being a swell.
The Commissioner:
There must be some motion.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Any current, even a slight current.
The Attorney-General:
In a current the ship and the ice would move together.
Sir Robert Finlay:
The "Californian" is brought up by the ice; it is heading, if I recollect rightly, North-East, and you have got the ice somehow passing by the ship's side, rubbing against it and making this noise.
The Commissioner:
It is suggested that the ship and the ice would move together, and that, therefore, you would have no rubbing.
Sir Robert Finlay:
It is difficult to argue from an expression of that kind, because nothing was put to this Witness about there being a swell there, and the evidence is precise and definite to the effect that when the boats got down to the water there was absolutely no swell.
The Commissioner:
That is the evidence from the "Titanic."
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
I was talking for the moment of the evidence of Gill from the "Californian."
Sir Robert Finlay:
The difficulty about that is this: That point was never pressed on Gill. No question was put as to there being no swell. All he said was: "I was kept awake by the rubbing of the ice." That might perfectly well be the vessel swinging.
The Commissioner:
But swinging consequent upon what?
Sir Robert Finlay:
Most certainly she swung round. Your Lordship recollects how her position changed. You do not have a vessel where it is brought up in that way absolutely motionless; it cannot very well be, and the vessel and the lumps of ice do not move at exactly the same rate. I submit there is a fallacy latent in the idea that because the ice and the vessel move together there would not be that rubbing noise. They would not move at the same rate.
The Commissioner:
I do not know that you are not right, but it appears to me that the difference in the way of the ship and the ice might produce that rubbing sound.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I submit it would.
The Commissioner:
One thing you point out is that it was not in the same position.
Sir Robert Finlay:
It was not in the same position. Without pursuing any further the effect of Mr. Gill's evidence, I hope I have said enough to show the extreme danger of disregarding precise, positive and uncontradicted evidence as to the state of things where the "Titanic" was, and having recourse to any inferences from what -
The Commissioner:
You understand that the evidence must be read with the experience of the gentlemen who advise me.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Entirely, and I am very glad your Lordship has such expert assistance, and your Lordship has had considerable experience elsewhere, of course, in matters of this kind, and I am very glad that this evidence will be appreciated by minds that have gone through that previous experience.
Now, my Lord, I have finished reading all I wish to in this connection in Mr. Lightoller's evidence. I do not know what course your Lordship thinks it desirable for me to take with regard to the other evidence. There is a very large body of evidence. I understood your Lordship to say yesterday that there was a large body of evidence, and no contradiction that this had been the uniform practice in the Atlantic trade.
The Commissioner:
Well, that is my impression of the evidence.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Perhaps your Lordship, having regard to the enormous importance of the point, would think it well that I should just go through it.
The Commissioner:
I would very much rather you did, Sir Robert.
Sir Robert Finlay:
If your Lordship pleases. Then I will take every Witness who deals with the point.
The next Witness that I call attention to is Captain Lord. I took Mr. Lightoller first as being on the "Titanic." Now Captain Lord, the Captain of the "Californian," at page 157, Question 6701, was asked: "Later on did you have to stop on account of ice? - (A.) I had to stop and reverse engines. (Q.) Would you tell us what time it was? - (A.) 10.21 p.m.," and then he gives the latitude and longitude.
Then on page 163, at Question 7047: "(Q.) Why did you double the look-out? - (A.) Because we had passed bergs during the afternoon, and we had had a report of bergs from Eastbound steamers. (Q.) You had reported to the "Titanic" that you had passed ice at half-past 6 that day? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) You doubled the look-out. You had one man at the crow's-nest? - (A.) Yes, and one man right in the bows of the ship." Question 7056, I am reminded, is very important. It is in another connection, it is true, but in passing it I just call attention to it. "(Q.) Did you find it better for detecting ice to have a man right in the bows like that? - (A.) Well, I do not know. This is my first experience of field ice. I think I saw the ice myself before they did." I was about to pass it for the moment because it is in another connection and will come in again on the question of the look-out and having a man in the bows.
Then on page 164, at Question 7112: "(Q.) When you first had warning of the presence of ice, did you slow down? - (A.) No. (Q.) You did not slow down? - (A.) No. (Q.) Is it not usual to slow down in the presence of ice? - (A.) No, not in clear weather. (Q.) At what speed were you going? - (A.) Eleven knots. (Q.) But if you are in a haze is it usual to slow down? - (A.) In an ice district, yes." There you have the practice of Mr. Lord, submitted to you by Mr. Lord, and what he himself did in conformity with that practice. Although he knew that ice was about he did not slow down.
The Commissioner:
You see, the reason they do not slow down in clear weather is this, that according to their experience they have always time to steer clear of an obstacle.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
That is their reason, but, then, that reason did not apply to this particular night.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, but owing to circumstances which could not -
The Commissioner:
Which were abnormal.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, that is really the whole point of the case; the case turns upon that.
The Commissioner:
To my mind - I am speaking without any consultation with my colleagues - it is a truism to say that there should be no slowing down if the circumstances are such as to enable you without any doubt to avoid obstacles without slowing down.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I entirely agree.
The Commissioner:
The whole object of slowing down is to enable you to avoid the objects which are in your way, and if you can avoid the objects in your way without slowing down, you do not slow down; at least, I should think not.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I entirely agree.
The Commissioner:
It does not appear to me to matter in the least whether the ship is going 11 knots or 50 knots, if it be true that you could always avoid the obstacle. Of course, you must first assume that it is true that you can always avoid an obstacle; if you can, then the speed is of no consequence; but if you cannot, or if there is a danger of you not being able to avoid the obstacle, then it becomes most important to reduce the speed.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Then, of course, comes the practical application of what your Lordship has mostly justly characterised as a truism. The experience of the Atlantic trade and the statistics show that you can in clear weather in all ordinary circumstances see a berg in time to avoid it. Here there were abnormal circumstances which, as has been said by several Witnesses, might never occur again, or might not occur once in a hundred years, that led to the accident, and that alone. I say with some confidence that no one can take these three sets of statistics with regard to the absence of casualties, the very small number of deaths on passages across the Atlantic relatively to the enormous traffic when this system was being uniformly pursued of going right ahead in clear weather at the same speed - no one, I say, can look at those statistics and fail to see that they were perfectly justified, these men of experience in this particular branch of navigation, the North Atlantic, in their belief that in clear weather you could see the ice in time to avoid it. If that were not the case you could not have had such statistics as those which are before the Court.
The experience in this matter is worth any amount of theory about it. Here you have this uniform practice of 20 years and you have, I venture to say, an extraordinary absence of casualty. It is perfectly impossible that you could have had that low percentage of casualties if the system on which they were proceeding was not a sound one. And it was sound, because in clear weather you could see a berg in time to avoid it. That is my submission to your Lordship on that part of the case. The whole importance of the matter is when one comes to translate the general proposition, which your Lordship justly characterised as a truism, into practice. The practical question is, can you in clear weather see a berg in time to avoid it? And the answer I say is demonstrated, by the experience of 20 years, to be that you can; and the answer to the question, "How did the 'Titanic' not see it in time?" is supplied by the fact that the circumstances were extraordinary and abnormal, and such as may never occur again.
The Commissioner:
You have not overlooked the fact that this was what you might call an abnormal ship. She was a very long ship, and a very big ship, and the circle in which she could turn was a large one.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
It was not easy for that ship to turn a circle which would enable her to avoid anything in front of her.
Sir Robert Finlay:
She was a big ship, undoubtedly.
The Commissioner:
And that was a circumstance known to the Captain.
Sir Robert Finlay:
But your Lordship recollects there were a great many other ships not very much less. I forget the lengths of the "Lusitania" and the "Mauretania," but they are not very far short. For all practical purposes I do not suppose there is much difference.
The Commissioner:
I am told they were about 90 ft. shorter than the "Titanic."
Sir Robert Finlay:
That does not make very much difference. Then your Lordship recollects the great big German liners. It is not as if this were a new departure altogether. This was a gradual growth; it had been going on. May I call your Lordship's attention to that Table which shows very well the history of the White Star Line; and, of course, it can be compared with the lengths of other vessels which are in evidence. It was handed in to the Court. I have it in the "Shipbuilder." My friend has a separate copy.
The Commissioner:
Yes, I have that.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I only refer to it in a casual way at this moment for the purpose of showing how the lengths went on gradually increasing. The diagram slopes up from the left-hand side, with variations, of course, getting longer and longer. You have the "Adriatic" and the "Baltic," and then finally you have the "Titanic" and the "Olympic." That growth was going on gradually, but side by side with that growth in the White Star Line was going on the growth in the other vessels. I quite appreciate the point, but I submit to your Lordship that there is nothing in the additional length of the "Titanic" to render it improper to adhere to the ordinary practice which had always been pursued in this matter.
The Commissioner:
I should have thought that the great length of this ship might make a difference, whether considerable or not, I cannot say, in the difficulty of avoiding an object.
Sir Robert Finlay:
My Lord, is not the answer with reference to any suggestion of negligence that may be made on that score supplied by the fact that there are other ships, which, for practical purposes, are as big, which have adhered to the same practice? It is a matter which I suggest cannot be imputed as negligence to any Officer in charge of the vessel that he did not vary from the ordinary practice in a way which no other Commander in charge of vessels which were approximately the same length, not very much shorter, did.
The Commissioner:
Well, I interrupted you. You were giving us a list of the Witnesses who had spoken to the practice.
Continued >
