British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 32
Final Arguments, cont.
The Commissioner:
No one can suppose for a moment that the Captain did not know quite well that the whole responsibility of the navigation of the ship was upon him, and that he had no business to take any orders from anybody else.
Sir Robert Finlay:
And that he never would. Captain Smith never would.
The Commissioner:
At the same time you know there is a feeling that if there is a person in the position of Mr. Ismay on board, the Captain may think it wise to speak to him on questions of navigation when he would not speak to another person at all. But that is surmise again.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Mere surmise.
The Commissioner:
Will you tell us, Mr. Attorney-General, what your view is?
The Attorney-General:
Yes, I think it right I should, so that my friend Sir Robert should know exactly the position I am going to take up. Substantially what your Lordship has said is my view of the evidence. I do not think that there is any evidence that Mr. Ismay interfered. The evidence that we have got all tends the other way. We have his own evidence that he did not interfere in any way, and there is no evidence to contradict it. As the matter stands, it is established that he did not interfere in the navigation. But, as your Lordship has pointed out, and it must be pretty obvious, the showing of the telegram to him was not such an act as would have been performed by the Captain to an ordinary passenger.
The Commissioner:
Certainly not.
The Attorney-General:
Whether it was merely to tell him what had happened and the news that he had got, and simply to give him information, is the one view; on the other hand, it is open to surmise that it was shown to Mr. Ismay for him to make any observation upon it if he thought fit. But he certainly did not on the evidence as it stands.
The Commissioner:
On the evidence he did not.
The Attorney-General:
I say on the evidence he did not; and upon the evidence as it stands I am not able to take it any further than that. I do intend to submit to the Court that Mr. Ismay cannot be treated as an ordinary passenger. I do not think that the view taken by him at one time - I doubt whether it is persisted in in consequence of some answers - that he was merely an ordinary passenger, could be substantiated. But, my Lord, it takes us no further in the case, and I do not think it assists your Lordship, so far as I know, in answering any of the questions that are put to you, because we still have to get to what happened; and if Mr. Ismay took no part in the directions as to navigation and offered no advice to the Captain, which is the evidence as we have it before us, I am not able to carry it any further than that.
The Commissioner:
Then, Sir Robert, I do not think you need trouble yourself to go in detail through Mr. Ismay's evidence; you may strike that out.
Sir Robert Finlay:
If your Lordship pleases. Then another suggestion was made, I am not sure that it was made by the Attorney-General, but by some of the gentlemen who addressed your Lordship, that Mr. Ismay ought to have said to the Captain, "Go slow."
The Commissioner:
Well, you may certainly strike that out.
The Attorney-General:
I certainly never made that suggestion.
The Commissioner:
That is an absurdity.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Sometimes it seems he was to blame for interfering, and at others to blame for not interfering. May I recall to your Lordship's memory the evidence there is that Mr. Ismay repeatedly travelled by the boats. He travelled as an ordinary passenger. Of course, it was known to everyone that he occupied a very influential position in the Company, but that did not affect his relations with those in command of the vessel one whit. Your Lordship will recollect that one of the many Captains who have been called in this case said that Mr. Ismay had gone with him repeatedly, and that he never had in the slightest degree occupied, so far as the management of the ship was concerned, any position except that of an ordinary passenger. Of course, that he was Chairman of the Company is a fact that in a sense marked him out from other passengers. My friend the Attorney-General is quite right in saying that in that respect he was not an ordinary passenger, but it did not one whit affect his relations with the navigation of the vessel, and a man of Captain Smith's standing was the last man in the world to have permitted anything of the sort; in fact, nothing could be further from Mr. Ismay's habits, as proved in this case. I therefore, after what your Lordship has said, hope that I may dismiss all the attacks which have been made upon Mr. Ismay in this respect as unfounded, and having really no relation to the facts of the case.
Your Lordship will recollect what I said about the idea that was put forward, not by the Attorney-General, that there was an intention to make a record passage.
The Commissioner:
You need not dwell upon that. I am satisfied that no record passage was being made.
The Attorney-General:
That was disproved.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, and if it were worth going into, your Lordship would find that the White Star Company have never gone in for very great speed. Their speed compared with other vessels built at the same date is rather lower. I have a table here which shows that in detail.
The Commissioner:
I do not think you need trouble about it.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Very well, my Lord, that concludes what I have to say with reference to the first head of the case, and I trust I may be very much briefer in the second. I am extremely sorry to have been so long, but your Lordship realises the importance of having the evidence grouped under the different heads, and I have endeavoured to do that as shortly as I could.
The Commissioner:
Please do not regret it, for what you have said has been the greatest assistance to me, and I know quite well that if you have been long, I have probably been the cause of it.
Sir Robert Finlay:
The real cause of it is the bulkiness of this record.
The Attorney-General:
I think really it has assisted because if my friend had not read the evidence which he has I should have had to call your Lordship's attention to a great part of it, which I do not propose to do now because your Lordship has the relevant passages.
The Commissioner:
We have it on the Note, so that it is like an index book now to me.
The Attorney-General:
There are some other passages to which I shall call attention, but of course it will only be necessary to direct your mind to a few.
Sir Robert Finlay:
My Lord, now I pass to the question of the boats and what happened after the collision had taken place. Attacks of several kinds have been suggested, and here I am speaking, not so much of my friend the Attorney-General as of other gentlemen who have appeared in the case for various parties. Attacks of various kinds have been made upon the Company. It has been said that the Company are to blame for not having provided more boats than they did on the "Titanic"; and secondly, that there was a want of discipline and proper training with reference to the use to be made of these boats, and that that resulted in a smaller number of people being taken away than otherwise might have been taken. I propose to deal with these points.
I trust that it is not necessary for me to say very much upon the first point, as to whether more boats ought to have been carried. When a disaster of this kind takes place there is very naturally a public cry as to why there were not boats capable of taking every person on board, and Mr. Scanlan, who dealt particularly with this part of the case, suggested that the Board of Trade were very much to blame, and that the Company were very much to blame for not having had boats adequate to carry every person on board. The truth is that, as regards the question of boats, you must adopt what may be called a reasonable compromise. The whole direction of the energy of shipowners has been towards securing that the ship itself is so thoroughly well built and equipped that there is very little likelihood of loss. At the same time you do not dispense with boats altogether, because the unexpected may happen, and you may want boats for a variety of purposes - communication with other vessels and so on. The result is the Recommendations which the Board of Trade have made and which are embodied in their regulations which have been considered so amply. It is enough for me, I think, to point out that what we carried was very considerably in excess of what was required by the Board of Trade, and very considerably in excess of what we should have been obliged to carry even if the Recommendations of the Advisory Committee had been carried into effect, because there is in those recommendations a provision that where there are watertight compartments a certain reduction may be obtained.
If Mr. Scanlan's point is right, he really blames not only the White Star Line, but he blames the whole world. He begins, of course, with the Board of Trade, and says that we ought to have seen that their requirements were grossly inadequate, and that although we largely exceeded them we did not exceed them sufficiently. Then he involves in the same condemnation all other British shipowners and all foreign shipowners because no shipowner with vessels of this class carries boats up to the capacity of the ship for passengers.
There was immediately after the disaster an extra provision of boats made under circumstances which Mr. Sanderson very frankly explained. He said there was a great public outcry. Of course, a commercial company is dependent upon the public for support, and we endeavoured to meet that cry by putting on board a great number of boats. We began by putting on board boats enough to carry all that the steamer had capacity to carry. We found that was absurd and so inconvenient that we dropped it, and we have been carrying, taking lifeboats and collapsibles together, enough to carry all that were on board on any particular passage. But the question is whether as things stood at the time the "Titanic" went to sea there was anything blameworthy in not providing more boats.
Now, my Lord, may I very shortly - because I do not think I ought very much to elaborate this point - indicate the considerations which go to show that the Company did all that could be required of them, and more than all that could be required of them. The Board of Trade requirements were exceeded. That has been so often pointed out that I need not go through the evidence. The question whether in the future more boats should be carried is, as I think your Lordship has indicated in the course of the case more than once, one of some difficulty. It involves many considerations, and, like many other questions, involves the balancing of considerations more or less conflicting, namely the efficient conduct of the vessel with a certain number of boats on board and the desirability of making, as far as reasonably can be done, provision in the case of disaster. But where the question is of that nature it cannot possibly be charged as negligence against the White Star Company that all that they did was very considerably to exceed the requirements of the Board of Trade. The "Titanic," in fact, had boats for 53 percent, of the persons who were actually carried, and this is in excess of any recommendation that had ever been made to the Board of Trade by any of its advisers. I need not go through the evidence with regard to that; your Lordship is familiar with it.
Then your Lordship has the Departmental Paper No. 249, giving a list of passenger steamships, with the tonnage, the capacity for passengers, and the boat equipment. It is a printed paper.
The Commissioner:
Yes, I have it.
Sir Robert Finlay:
One need not go through the whole of it; take a few cases. The "Baltic," I see, is one of them. The number of passengers and crew for which a passenger certificate is granted in the case of the "Baltic" is 2,041 passengers, 370 crew; total, 2,411; the boat equipment would accommodate 1,054 persons. That is one of the White Star Line vessels. That would be 43 percent of the carrying capacity.
Then go down a few lines and you come to the "Carmania," one of the Cunard vessels. The carrying capacity by way of passengers and crew of the "Carmania" is 3,520. The boat equipment was for 1,034 persons; that is 29.3 percent. The "Caronia," another of the Cunard vessels, carrying capacity, passengers and crew, 3,483 persons; the persons who could be accommodated in the boats, 1,388.
The Attorney-General:
Has your Lordship that paper?
The Commissioner:
Yes.
The Attorney-General:
It is printed by the Board of Trade.
The Commissioner:
This was prepared for this case, was it not?
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes; the heading explains what it is. The "Caronia" had 39 percent of the carrying capacity. Of course the 53 percent I gave in the case of the "Titanic" was of the persons actually carried. The figure for the "Titanic," if you take it, as it is taken in this table, with regard to the carrying capacity of passengers and crew, would be 33 percent, and a fraction. So that while it is 53 percent of the passengers on board, it was 33 percent of the carrying capacity of the "Titanic."
Then the "Carpathia" could carry 2,864 passengers and crew and had boats for 1,072. That is equal to 37 percent of the carrying capacity. Then the "Franconia," a Cunarder, carrying capacity, passengers and crew, 3,145; boat accommodation, 960; that is, 30.8 percent, as against the 33 percent of the "Titanic." Then the "Ivernia" is a little higher; 2,589 passengers and crew carrying capacity; 1,018 persons boat accommodation; that would make it 39 percent. On the "Laconia," another Cunarder, 3,109 passengers and crew could be carried; boat equipment for 960 persons; that would be 30 percent. The "Lusitania," 2,889 carrying capacity passengers and crew; boat accommodation, 978 persons; that is 34 percent - a fraction over the percentage in the case of the "Titanic." The "Mauretania," carrying capacity 2,972; accommodation for 976 persons in the boats; 32.8 percent, which is a fraction less than the accommodation on board the "Titanic" was.
I submit that a glance at those instances which I have taken from this table which, as it is expressed in the title, is a list of all passenger steamships of 10,000 tons and upwards for which passenger certificates were granted between the 1st January, 1911, and the 30th April, 1912. A glance at this table shows that the blame imputed to the White Star is blame that would be imputed to all other Companies engaged in such traffic.
Then I would invite your Lordship's attention to another table, which appears in the Shorthand Notes at page 538, with regard to two big German vessels; two vessels built by Harland and Wolff for a German company, the "President Lincoln" and the "President Grant." The "President Lincoln" had lifeboats for 1,465 persons. Then, as against the 1,465 persons for whom lifeboat accommodation is provided, the total number of souls on board is 4,108. "Total number of souls on board" means all that could be on board. That works out at 35.5. The "President Grant" had boat accommodation for 1,516 persons; total number of souls on board, 3,991; 37.9 percent.
There is also a table which has been handed in with reference to German vessels headed: "Boat accommodation on German passenger steamers," other than the two, the "President Lincoln" and the "President Grant," which I have given.
The Commissioner:
Where shall I find that?
Sir Robert Finlay:
I do not think it is printed in the Notes.
The Attorney-General:
No, it is a loose table. I commented upon it, and called your Lordship's attention to the accommodation.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Here is the list giving the percentage. The maximum number of passengers allowed is in the second column, varying from 2,857 in the case of the "Amerika," down to 1,412 in the case of the "Kron Prinzesse Cecilie"; then the crew carried, and then the total number of persons on board is the sum of those two; that is to say, it is not the persons actually carried, of course - that would vary on every voyage - it is the number that might be carried. Then in the next division, headed "31st March, 1912," you find the percentages. I will take only the percentages without stopping to read the numbers in cubic feet: 74, 65, 55, 48, 74, and 72.
The Commissioner:
All of those are in excess.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, they are considerably in excess of the "President Lincoln" and the "President Grant," and they are in excess, of course, of English vessels, but they do not, of course, come up to the standard of providing for all that could be carried.
The Commissioner:
Oh, no.
Sir Robert Finlay:
And nothing like it.
The Commissioner:
They vary between 48 and 74 percent.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I do not desire in the slightest degree to enter into the question of what recommendation should be made, but I think your Lordship has expressed an opinion that there are a great many conflicting considerations that have to be taken into account, and it is a matter requiring the most serious consideration what increase should be made.
Pushing it to its logical conclusion on the lines adopted by Mr. Scanlan it would come to this, that no vessel is to take the sea unless she has got boats adequate to carry every soul on board; and further it would require, as your Lordship pointed out, owing to the difficulty when a disaster occurs of getting everyone into them, that there should be a considerable excess of boats over what would hold that number when tightly packed. After all, business considerations must to some extent govern, because ships will not be sent to sea unless they are properly workable, and perfect safety is really only to be attained by stopping on shore.
Mr. Scanlan said, if I rightly followed him, that shipowners had done their best to realise the vision of the "oarless sea" by reducing the number of boats to a minimum. They have done nothing of the kind. They have acted in excess of the Board of Trade requirements and they are ready to go to any extent in the way of boat accommodation that may be indicated as being right and prudent in view of the various conflicting considerations which have to be taken into account.
A good deal was said by Mr. Scanlan at one part of the case with regard to Mr. Carlisle's evidence as to a submission to the White Star Company of a plan for a great many more lifeboats. That is specifically contradicted by Mr. Ismay on page 446 and by Mr. Sanderson at page 483. I think Mr. Carlisle's evidence with regard to what he says took place at the Committee very much attenuates the importance of anything he said as to what took place elsewhere, because he is most specifically contradicted by Sir Norman Hill, and the contradiction was supported by the shorthand notes to which Sir Norman Hill referred. I, therefore, submit no importance whatever can be attached to Mr. Carlisle's evidence on this point, and that it is ridiculous to make a charge against the White Star Company for refusing the recommendations which Mr. Carlisle suggests he made, but which in fact, on his own evidence he did not make. It was the question of the davits - how many boats should be under davits and how the davits should be constructed.
My Lord, I pass from that and I proceed to deal with the question of what was done when the disaster had taken place.
The first point that I wish to deal with is the order in which the boats left, because I think your Lordship will find it has a material bearing upon the question of why it was that some boats had considerably less than their full complement while others were filled up. I think the result of an examination of the evidence in this: It shows that the earlier boats, the boats that left earlier, had considerably less than their complement: they had something like on the average 38 persons per boat, while those which left later were packed up. My friend, Mr. Asquith, has prepared a most useful list of the boats in a printed form which has been handed to the Court. There is one correction to be made on that table, and I understand that my friend, Mr. Asquith, has been in communication with Mr. Maurice Hill on the subject, and he agrees in the correction which I proposed. Will your Lordship take the two last pages. The penultimate page gives the order in which the boats were launched on the starboard side. We agree with Mr. Asquith's statement on that point as to the starboard side. The last page gives the order in which the boats were launched on the port side. There is an error there of this kind. I will read the first item in the Table: "No. 14, No. 16 and No. 12 were the first to get away, all about the same time, probably in the order given." That is wrong. These boats all left at about the same time, or at short intervals, but they left after Nos. 6, 8 and 10 had left, and left in the order in which I have given them. So that the first boat to go off was No. 6, the second boat to go off from the port side was No. 8, the third was No. 10, and then, and not till then, Nos. 12, 14 and 16 left with no great interval. No. 12 was fourth, No. 14 fifth, and No. 16 sixth. That is the true order of leaving from the port side. Then the seventh boat was No. 2, the eighth boat was No. 4, and the port collapsible was the ninth.
The Commissioner:
I have not got those quite right. The first was No. 6, the second No. 8, the third No. 10, the fourth No. 12, the fifth No. 14, and the sixth was No. 16.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
Which was the seventh?
Sir Robert Finlay:
No. 2.
The Commissioner:
And No. 4 the eighth.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, and then the port collapsible ninth.
That being the admitted order, as I understand it, in which these boats left, I would ask your Lordship to look as to the orders given for the earlier boats. These orders were in substance - we have not got the orders in every case, but in a great many cases - that they were to stand by, and it was obviously expected that these earlier boats should keep near the ship, or in the case of some of the boats should return to the ship for the purpose of getting more passengers. Your Lordship recollects the evidence as to the order to open the gangway door. That order for some reason appears to have been countermanded, for that gangway door was not opened, and probably for some good reason. I apprehend that the reason for the change of purpose was that there was ground for supposing that the ship might go down rather earlier, and then, of course, the effect would have been disastrous on any boats that were engaged in taking passengers in at the gangway door. Anyhow, I would ask your Lordship to look at the evidence with regard to the orders that were given to the earlier boats.
Take first the starboard boats and then the port boats. With regard to the order of launching, on the starboard side there was first No. 7. That is shown on the Table which is agreed. If your Lordship will look at the evidence as to the order given by Mr. Murdoch your Lordship will find that it was to stand by the gangway, or to that effect. That is at page 18.
The Commissioner:
Which boat are you on?
Sir Robert Finlay:
No. 7, the first on the starboard side. It is in the evidence of Jewell at page 18, Question 131: "You say Mr. Murdoch was giving orders about lowering the boat; did he give orders to launch her down to the water? - (A.) To lower her right down to the water. (Q.) And what were the orders about - what was she to do? - (A.) He told us to stand by the gangway." Those two questions relate to No. 7. Question 102 shows this is No. 7. "(Q.) [132] And what were the orders about - what was she to do? - (A.) He told us to stand by the gangway. (Q.) I do not quite know what you mean by that. What is the gangway you are referring to? - (A.) The doors that open in the ship's side. Just about here (Pointing to the model.) - the door is open continually. (Q.) Amidships? - (A.) Yes." It is abaft of amidships, I think.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, it is.
Sir Robert Finlay:
"Where the gangway would be if she were in port, I suppose? - (A.) Yes, that is right." That is the gangway by which we all entered into the "Olympic."
The Commissioner:
Yes.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Then he points out the spot on the model with some other gangways. Then Question 139: "(Q.) Now where was this gangway you speak of," and then he points. That would be abaft amidships. Then "(Q.) And you were told to remain in the water below that gangway? - (A.) Yes. (The Solicitor-General.) Those were your orders. How far off from the ship did you keep? - (A.) We kept right alongside. (Q.) Was the sea smooth? - (A.) Yes, very smooth." So much for No 7.
Then with regard to No. 5, which is the second boat on the starboard side, your Lordship will find the evidence about that - it was given by Mr. Pitman - at page 347, Question 15015: "(Q.) In view of the number that you had got into the boat at this time, did you think that that was as many as this boat would safely carry before she was lowered to the water? - (A.) No, I did not decide how many she should take. (Q.) Who decided that? - (A.) Mr. Murdoch, he came along just then. (Q.) What did he say? - (A.) Well, I jumped out of the boat then, ready to lower away, and he said, "You go in charge in this boat, and also look after the others, and stand by to come along the after gangway when hailed." (Q.) Did you go in charge of this boat? - (A.) I did." Then on page 115, Shiers, who was in the boat, give corroborative evidence on the point. Question 4819 is "Did the Officer who told you to lower away No. 5 tell you what to do when you got to the water? - (A.) He did not tell me; he told the other Officer." That would be Mr. Pitman. "(Q.) What did he tell him? - (A.) When he got down into the water, to take charge of that line of boats as they came down and stand off at 200 yards." Your Lordship sees that goes to the other boats as well. "(Q.) Stand off the ship 200 yards? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) And Pitman, I think, was your Officer that went in the boat? - (A.) Yes."
Then Mr. Lowe speaks of the order on page 368. Will your Lordship look first at page 367, Question 15818? He is stating the boats that he went to. "(Q.) Did you then go to No. 3? - (A.) I then went to No. 3." That is one of the boats he went to. Then, over the page, page 368, Questions 15906 to 15912; I think I might almost take 15912 as summarising the matter with regard to the orders given. "(Q.) With reference to these boats that were lowered on your side at which you assisted, did you, after they had been lowered, take any means of communicating with those on board in order to have them filled up through the gangways? - (A.) Yes. I told them to haul off from the ship's side, but to remain within hail. That is what I told each of them with the exception of the boat that Mr. Pitman went in." Mr. Pitman got that order.
Then with regard to No. 1, Mr. Murdoch was in charge of that. The order to that was to stand off a little and come back when called. Lowe was also there. No. 1 is the fourth in order from the starboard side according to Mr. Asquith's Table. Question 11488 on page 257 in Symons' evidence is: "Do you remember getting an order from Mr. Murdoch to stand off a little way when the boat was lowered? - (A.) Yes, my orders were to pull away from the ship, not too far, and to stand by if I was called back. (Q.) That we have not had from you yet. That is what I wanted. That is quite right. Your Lordship will see the importance of it all. You have it in mind. Question 5011 is what Hendrickson said about this. He was cross-examined about it. That substantially agrees, I think, with what Hendrickson says. I will read you what he says: "We were told to stand off a little way and come back when called." That is right? - (A.) That is what Mr. Murdoch gave me."
With regard to the other boats on the starboard side, Nos. 9, 11, 13, 15, and the collapsible, there is no evidence of any such order; there is no evidence of any such order at all being given. But with the earlier boats it was obviously contemplated that they should stand by and come to the gangway. Mr. Murdoch was there at the launching of boats Nos. 9, 11, possibly of No. 13, though that is not certain; he was there certainly at No. 15 and at the launching of the collapsible. But there is no actual evidence of the order which Mr. Murdoch gave - as to whether he gave the same order which he had given to the earlier boats or not. Very likely he did not. Then if your Lordship will take the next, the boats on the port side in the corrected order, No. 6 is the first to get away. There is some conflict of evidence about this boat. Hichens says that Mr. Lightoller gave the order to pull for that light (Pointing to the light on the port bow.) Mr. Lightoller says that he gave no such order; and it is not very probable that he should have given such an order. At this time he was ordering the boatswain to open the gangway doors. I will just give the references which verify that. Page 44 is Hichens' evidence. Question 1159 is "When the boat was lowered did you have any order as to what you were to do? - (A.) Yes, sir. (Q.) Who gave it to you? - (A.) Mr. Lightoller, the Second Officer. (Q.) What was the order? - (A.) To pull for that light - to steer for that light. (Q.) What light? - (A.) There was a light about two points on the port bow, about five miles away I should judge." Mr. Lightoller contradicts that on page 316, and says in answer to Question 13978: "(Q.) Did you or did you not give any directions to these boats which might be taken to mean that they were to row to the light? - (A.) No. (Q.) Were they to go away or were they to stay by the ship? - (A.) No, I cannot remember giving the boats any directions at all."
Continued >
