British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 33
Final Arguments, cont.
I have had supplied to me, which I believe came from the Board of Trade, the corrected figures in red of these black calculations, and if one works them out you arrive at the actual freeboard assigned to this vessel and the actual figures required under Table C, of 10 feet 11 1/2 inches.
The Commissioner:
Is the 10 feet 11 1/2 inches in lieu of the 11 feet?
Mr. Laing:
Eleven feet 1 inch.
The Commissioner:
There is no 11 feet 1 inch.
Mr. Laing:
Mr. Edwards' figures are that Table C requires a freeboard of 11 feet 1 inch. I say that is wrong. In truth, Table C requires a freeboard of 10 feet 11 1/2 inches.
The Commissioner:
And the 10 feet 11 1/2 inches, what figure is that represented by in the letter of 30th April, 1910?
Mr. Laing:
That is represented by a figure of 10 feet 9 inches, I think - minus 5. Your Lordship will see it is a most elaborate calculation.
The Commissioner:
What do you say that ought to be?
Mr. Laing:
It ought to be, in truth, 10 feet 11 1/2 inches, the requirements of Table C.
The Commissioner:
Then, if 10 feet 11 1/2 inches is right, instead of requiring the deck to go up above E, it might conceivably have been taken some very short space below deck E, or deck E might be lowered.
Mr. Laing:
Yes, your Lordship will observe an error in Mr. Edwards' theory. He says the actual freeboard assigned was 10 feet 11 1/2 inches. If you take that 10 feet 11 1/2 inches it is simply equal to the requirements of Table C, but the real freeboard assigned was 11 feet 2 1/2 inches. Therefore she exceeded the requirements of Table C by 3 inches. Everybody is agreed that that is true.
The Commissioner:
The actual freeboard is what?
Mr. Laing:
11 feet 2 1/2 inches.
The Commissioner:
Where do you get that from?
Mr. Laing:
I prove that by showing, as I just have done, that Mr. Carruthers said that she was 3 inches in excess of Table C Regulations.
The Commissioner:
But some calculation was put before me which I never understood and do not understand now.
Mr. Laing:
I can prove it in a sort of way, but it is very difficult.
The Commissioner:
I suppose Mr. Edwards' contention involves saying that the freeboard certificate is wrong.
Mr. Laing:
Yes, it must do.
The Attorney-General:
The point I am going to take with regard to that is this: I am not going to repeat one word my friend, Mr. Laing, has said. I have sufficient confidence in Mr. Laing from experience, and I am quite certain when he has done with it he has said all there is to be said on the technical aspect of it; but the point to which I shall direct attention is this. As I understand my friend, Mr. Edwards' contention, this is not a charge of negligence against the Department of the Board of Trade. It is a charge, if it means anything, against one particular official of the Board of Trade. I am drawing the distinction, which your Lordship will appreciate, between saying the Board of Trade is negligent in not framing regulations for certain purposes, and saying that the Board of Trade has framed regulations and proper regulations, but a particular official has not in this case carried out those regulations. Of course, there is all the difference in the world between the two charges. The second is the charge which is to be gathered from what my friend, Mr. Edwards, has said, that is to say his whole contention is that "these regulations are quite right and proper. I make no attack upon them - indeed, I rely upon them."
The Commissioner:
That is Table C.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, he says they ought to have been carried out, and in this particular case they were not carried out, and he says there was no discretion to be exercised by the Surveyor. Your Lordship will remember there was a little discussion as to what was the meaning of these Regulations and suggestions, and obviously the answer was that if there was any discretion left to the Surveyor no attack could be made upon the exercise of that discretion. If there was - and it seems to me really that is all that results from it so far as I have been able to follow this point which really was made for the first time when my friend, Mr. Edwards, came to address your Lordship -
The Commissioner:
I doubt whether it was Mr. Edwards' point.
The Attorney-General:
I doubt it, because he did not succeed in making it clear, and I am not quite sure that he fully grasped the meaning of the point and the calculations which would have to be made. But I certainly would admit this, that he indicated the point when both Mr. Archer and Mr. Carruthers were in the box, and then he asked for correspondence about it. Your Lordship will remember I said the correspondence should be produced, and it was produced, and it is that correspondence to which my friend is referring. The point I want to make is this: From the moment that my friend had the correspondence he has never put a single question, or asked to put a question, to either of the Witnesses, whichever it may be, against whom he is making this charge of negligence.
The Commissioner:
It is said they did not get the correspondence in time to examine it and to put the questions.
The Attorney-General:
I quite agree that my friend had not it at the time; but when he asked for it it was produced, and I do think it is a matter for comment that if he meant to charge either of the two gentlemen who spoke upon this matter with dereliction of duty founded upon the correspondence, at least the point ought to have been put to him.
Mr. Laing:
While Mr. Wilding was recalled.
The Attorney-General:
Yes. It is very difficult, of course, to see exactly at all times what was in my friend's mind on this point.
The Commissioner:
Whom do you call your friend now?
The Attorney-General:
Mr. Edwards.
The Commissioner:
Oh!
The Attorney-General:
My impression, from what took place, is that when the correspondence was produced there was an end of the point. I had no notion that when my friend came to address your Lordship he was going to say that Mr. Carruthers had made some miscalculation, which had never been put to him. That is the difficulty I have; it is all based upon an argument and upon calculations which have not been put to the Witness who is involved.
The Commissioner:
Mr. Laing is demonstrating - I cannot say in such a way that I can understand - that Mr. Edwards' calculations were wrong. I know that Mr. Edwards' calculations have been wrong in other respects, and that may be some evidence that they are wrong in this, but I do not profess at present to understand them.
The Attorney-General:
Neither do I.
The Commissioner:
Do you understand them, Mr. Laing?
Mr. Laing:
Very indifferently, my Lord. There is very little information to be gleaned out of this book about these matters.
The Commissioner:
I shall not be at all offended if you give me a candid answer, but do you think you are ever going to make me understand them?
Mr. Laing:
On the material before your Lordship, so far as the figures and calculations are concerned, I certainly do not, because I have not the means of putting the calculation before you; it is not on the evidence, but I have the results of the calculations in evidence. I pointed out that the freeboard exceeded by 3 inches the requirements of Table C, and all these gentlemen from the Board of Trade have been called, and say that every regulation was complied with. Your Lordship has the certificate which was handed in at a very early stage of this case - the certificate of the freeboard of this vessel; and it is astounding, it is monstrous to think that this vessel should have been allowed to go away with her bulkheads a deck below where they ought to be. That cannot be conceived.
The Commissioner:
Have the underwriters paid on the policy?
Mr. Laing:
I believe they have.
The Commissioner:
I do not think they can get their money back.
Mr. Laing:
Your Lordship is asked to find this vessel unseaworthy on no evidence at all except on a calculation the factors of which I have showed are not correct. I have a method which has been shown to me of demonstrating how my 11 feet 2 1/2 inches is correct.
The Commissioner:
Do you question 11 feet 2 1/2 inches, Mr. Pringle?
Mr. Pringle:
If you had permitted me earlier, my Lord, I was going to explain that it was not really now in dispute - at least, so far as I am concerned.
The Commissioner:
Then I am sorry I did not ask you earlier. Does that correction disturb Mr. Edwards' calculation?
Mr. Pringle:
I think it does. Mr. Edwards was not quite sure himself, I think.
The Commissioner:
That is a very candid and a very fair admission, and I really do not think, after that, we need go any further on this point.
Mr. Pringle:
If your Lordship will allow me to make an explanation -
The Commissioner:
Certainly.
Mr. Pringle:
The only figures before these were the figures in the correspondence.
The Commissioner:
That is, the black figures in this letter.
Mr. Pringle:
Yes, and we thought it only right to test those figures to see exactly on what basis a new freeboard had been assigned to this vessel, because undoubtedly the new assignment of freeboard was a matter of considerable consequence, as it was going to make a difference in respect of the decks or deck to which the bulkheads should be carried, as those were the bulkheads which were the vital bulkheads in connection with the vessel, and we thought it right that the matter should be tested.
On the figures given there, a moulded depth of 45 feet and a load draught of 34 feet 9 inches, we found there was a deficiency which has been already mentioned. Then it was stated in evidence - I think it was by Mr. Archer - or it is stated in the correspondence, that a difference was made on the freeboard, and on testing this difference with the figures in the correspondence we found that that was not sufficient to bring it below Table C; and undoubtedly, I think it will be admitted that it was not sufficient on the figures which were used in the calculations.
The Commissioner:
Let us assume for a moment that it was not.
Mr. Pringle:
If it were not sufficient, then these bulkheads should have been carried to deck D instead of to deck E, and it was with a view to testing that that this matter was gone into, and I think it was perfectly fair.
The Commissioner:
I am not complaining of that at all. I only wanted to know about the accuracy now of the contention having regard to the corrected figures.
Mr. Pringle:
At the time we tested the calculation we had not the loadline forms in our possession.
The Commissioner:
But now you have them.
Mr. Pringle:
I have seen the loadline forms.
The Commissioner:
Having procured them, are you now satisfied that the requirements only necessitated carrying the bulkhead up to deck E?
Mr. Pringle:
Yes, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
Then that disposes of that point.
Mr. Pringle:
Yes, I think it does.
The Commissioner:
Then you need not trouble any more about that, Mr. Laing.
Mr. Laing:
If your Lordship pleases. Then I pass on to the next point that was made by Mr. Edwards, which was this. He says the correspondence shows that the Board of Trade objected to the cranking forward, I think it has been called, of the collision bulkhead. They said that the cranking forward between the D and the E decks infringed one of their Rules about the length it ought to be abaft the stem. There was considerable discussion over this matter, and finally the builders, Messrs. Harland and Wolff, said: To get rid of all these troubles we will carry up the next bulkhead abaft it to D deck, instead of stopping it at E deck. The Board of Trade thought that was a reasonable and proper suggestion, and they finally confirmed it and accepted it, and stepped it aft; and arranged it as it is now arranged. There can be no complaint about that.
The Commissioner:
I am advised that that was quite a reasonable and proper thing to do.
Mr. Laing:
If your Lordship pleases. Then I pass away from that. The next point was, that having raised this second bulkhead abaft the stem up to D deck the Board of Trade raised difficulties, or rather suggested difficulties, that the spiral stairway in the No. 1 hatchway ought to be trunked up. There was some considerable correspondence and discussion about that, and finally Messrs. Harland and Wolff said to the Board of Trade: We will send you a calculation which will satisfy you that if these two matters are not done which you are pressing for and which will inconvenience us - we will satisfy you that the ship cannot possibly hurt in consequence; in other words, that the result will be negligible. They sent their calculations; the Board of Trade considered them and accepted them; and said: "We are satisfied that our previous point was negligible and we abandon our objection." In consequence, the firemen's stairway was not trunked up and the hatch was not trunked up with the full approval of the Board of Trade. How does the matter stand with regard to this? Mr. Edwards pressed Mr. Archer with a view of establishing that if his suggestions to trunk up these two places had been carried out the ship would never have sunk.
The evidence about that is absolutely conclusive. Mr. Archer, at page 693, Question 24452, said the non-trunking had absolutely no effect at all upon the loss of this vessel, and he said the same thing at 24454, two questions lower down. Mr. Wilding's evidence at page 518, Question 20384, is to the same effect. At page 806 of Mr. Edwards' argument he says that Mr. Archer, in answer to him, had said that if this trunkway had been fitted it would have had a very different effect, the suggestion being that the sinking of this vessel might have been saved. You will find that about the middle of the right-hand column on page 806: "You remember, perhaps, my Lord, that Mr. Archer, who had made this recommendation, gave certain evidence, and he stated in reply to a question of mine, that he thought, in the light of the 'Titanic' disaster, it would have been very much better if these requirements at that time had been insisted upon." That is a complete misconception of the answer of Mr. Archer, as one can see if you refer to it on page 693, Question 24457 - your Lordship had better, perhaps, in order to appreciate my point, read again the answer at the top of page 693 too. He is asked what bearing the trunking had on the sinking, and he says: "Not the very slightest effect. (Q.) You do not think so? - (A.) Not the very slightest." Then at 24457 Mr. Edwards presses Mr. Archer, and the Witness told him why he did not insist on this trunking being done; and at the bottom of that answer, 24457, Mr. Archer says this: "And when I had ascertained myself that the top of this bulkhead would then be 15 1/2 feet above the water, I felt I had insufficient ground for insisting that that should be done, and withholding the declaration." Then follows the question about which I consider there is a great misconception. Mr. Edwards says: "24458. Now, in the light of what has happened to the 'Titanic,' do you think that your view was the best one, or the builders' view was the best one? - (A.) I think that my view was the only right one within our powers under the Merchant Shipping Act." What Mr. Archer obviously means is that in his view he should give way, having had this calculation put forward - that having studied it, he was bound to give way under his powers under the Merchant Shipping Act. But Mr. Edwards has misconceived that answer, and has considered that it means that Mr. Archer on reflection thinks that he was wrong in giving way. That cannot be so in the light of the question which I have just read, 24452, where he says it had not the slightest possible effect on the sinking. I think there is a misconception there.
My Lord, I think I have dealt with the points raised by Mr. Edwards in his argument, with the exception of one, and I will deal with that very shortly, because your Lordship has sent, as I understand, to the other Committee the question of whether bulkheads should be led up to a watertight deck. Your Lordship remembers the argument about that. Some passage was quoted from the Memorandum of the Board of Trade to the Bulkhead Committee and the Report of the Bulkhead Committee of 1891, in which the expression is used: "The bulkhead shall be carried to the bulkhead or watertight deck." Mr. Archer says: I need not trouble your Lordship with the references about this - that the wording of that Memorandum has always appeared to him to be inaccurate, and that in point of practice these vessels, in the mercantile marine at all events, never have a watertight deck; and that they do not apply that part of the recommendations of the Bulkhead Committee which says the bulkheads ought to be taken up to a watertight deck. They do not do that in practice, and have never done it; and, therefore, as the recommendation of the Bulkhead Committee is only a recommendation and not statutory at all, the Board of Trade are perfectly within their powers in not enforcing this so-called watertight deck, which they do not believe was intended to mean what it apparently does mean. Mr. Archer thought it meant watertight from above; Mr. Edwards thought it meant watertight from below; and having engaged in a discussion over the matter for some hours your Lordship determined to send the matter to the other Committee in order that it might be discussed and perhaps decided there. So that I do not think I need say anything more about the watertight decks.
Now, the last point I have to deal with is the question which your Lordship asked me to look up, whether if the bulkhead between No. 4 and 5 boiler sections had been carried to C deck the "Titanic" would have remained longer afloat, unless it is true that the No. 4 section was holed to such an extent that the pumps could have kept the water down. My Lord, I have looked carefully into the evidence upon this point, and so far as I can see there is no direct evidence except perhaps an answer by the Attorney-General, when the question was being asked, that he thought probably the vessel might have floated.
The Attorney-General:
I do not think I did say it. It says so, I know, but I did not say it.
The Commissioner:
Was the Attorney-General giving evidence?
Mr. Laing:
I think he was, my Lord, on this occasion.
The Attorney-General:
I do not think I can have said it, because I certainly would not know it.
Mr. Laing:
It is on page 518, Question 20372: "(The Commissioner.) If it had been carried up to C deck the ship would have been saved, or might have been saved? - (The Attorney-General.) Yes, I think it would."
The Attorney-General:
It must be wrong.
Mr. Laing:
I hope I have now justified the charge which I brought against the Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General:
I think the last thing on which I would venture to give an opinion is as to flotability. That is wrong.
Mr. Laing:
Mr. Wilding has put in, as your Lordship knows, what has been called the flooding plan, which is a very elaborate and most ingenious plan, showing the flooding of the various compartments; and as the Attorney-General disowns this answer, which he has given, I took the opportunity of getting Mr. Wilding to answer it. It is not in the evidence, but it is on the plan, and Mr. Wilding's answer is that had the bulkhead in question been carried up to C, as your Lordship's question suggests, the ship might have floated six to twelve hours longer. That is the answer.
But I should like to point out in that connection that there is no reason I can see, nor has any reason been suggested during the course of this case, why that particular bulkhead should have been carried up to deck C, because it is in violation of the whole scheme of the design of the ship. And if you carry up the watertight bulkheads to deck C, as Mr. Wilding has pointed out, the ship as a commercial object becomes of very little use, because they want to have deck C free. Your Lordship will remember - I need not trouble you with the reference - that Mr. Wilding said that they would not be able to supply the exits which were required by the Board of Trade for emigrant vessels and so forth if these bulkheads were carried up to deck C. I have answered that question so far as I can; it is one of the questions upon which there is no evidence, but a plan and the answer which I have read, and that is the only answer I can give, namely, what Mr. Wilding has told me. I do not want to go into the matter because it has been gone into more than once. The evidence shows that No. 4 boiler section was holed, and that water was rising into it from the skin of the ship. That is the result, I submit, of the evidence which I read to your Lordship of Dillon and Cavell, who both were in that particular compartment and who spoke to the water rising. My Lord, I do not think there is anything further I have to say.
The Commissioner:
The Witness said nothing about the locality from which the water came.
Mr. Laing:
I think that all came out. I did not say anything about it because Mr. Wilding went into it fully when he was in the box. There was no cross-examination in my remembrance of anything he said about it. I can give your Lordship the reference to the passage.
The Commissioner:
Do so, please.
The Attorney-General:
Is your Lordship's question directed to No. 4 or generally?
The Commissioner:
No. 4, I think.
Mr. Laing:
I thought your Lordship meant generally.
The Commissioner:
No. 4.
Mr. Laing:
I will give your Lordship the passage about that. You will find it on page 517, and from Questions 20346 to 20350 you will find Mr. Wilding's view as to whether this compartment was holed or not from his knowledge of the evidence as it had been delivered.
The Commissioner:
Just read it, Mr. Laing. "20346: Have you got any theory as to the extent to which the outside of the ship was damaged in No. 4? - (A.) There is a space between the stokehold plate on which the men stand and the tank top, and the inference that I drew from the evidence that was given by Dillon was that an attempt was being made to pump out this water which the engineers found coming in, and that that was the reason why they sent aft. They had only one pump in No. 4 boiler room, and the reason they sent aft for those additional pumps was to get additional pumping power on to No. 4 boiler room, with a view to keeping it down. That would, in general terms, agree with the evidence given by Mr. Ismay as to his conversation with the Chief Engineer, that he hoped to keep it under by pumping. I admit the evidence is circumstantial." Will you go on reading that, please?
Mr. Laing:
I will read the next Question: "20347: What I wanted to ask you is this. A difficulty is felt as to how No. 4 could have been injured in the skin of the ship if the wound terminated, as from Barrett's evidence apparently it did terminate, just above the watertight compartment forward of No. 5? - (A.) From a calculation which I will refer to in a moment, I cannot believe that the wound was absolutely continuous the whole way. I believe that it was in a series of steps, and that from what we heard Barrett say in his evidence it was the end of one of the series of wounds which flooded the different spaces; that before the ship finally cleared the iceberg as the helm was put over she would be tending to swing her side into the iceberg, and that a very light contact was made in No. 4. It seemed very probable, quite apart from actual direct evidence of the fact; that is, that after the ship had finished tearing herself at the forward end of No. 5, she would tend to push herself against the iceberg a little, or push herself up the iceberg, and there would be a certain tendency, as the stern came round to aft under the helm, to bang against the iceberg again further aft. (Q.) Is the ship broadening at all as far aft as that (Pointing to the model.)? - (A.) Practically parallel." Then your Lordship asks him about Cavell's evidence at 20349: "If this evidence of Cavell's is correct, do you draw the inference that in some way or other there was an injury to the skin of the ship as far aft as the No. 4 boiler section? - (A.) I believe that to be correct the whole body of evidence tends that way, Barrett's in particular. (Q.) If the double skin had been carried up higher" - and then it passes off to another point. Your Lordship remembers the evidence quite generally, that they were pumping in No. 4, and that they brought a section of some pipe from aft in order to couple up, as Mr. Wilding thought from the evidence, and pump from No. 3 section, so as to increase the pumping power on that particular division, and that they were pumping up there until practically the last, because, as Dillon and Cavell say, the water was rising as they left. Would your Lordship like me to read Dillon's and Cavell's evidence again?
The Commissioner:
No, I think not. Now, Mr. Dunlop, how long do you think you will take to convince us that the "Californian" did not see the "Titanic's" lights?
Mr. Dunlop:
I think, my Lord, I will take about two hours.
May it please your Lordship, I am instructed by the Leyland Line, the owners of the "Californian," to appear on their behalf and on behalf of the Master, and I desire at the outset to express on their behalf their profound regret that the "Californian" was unable to, or did not render any assistance to the "Titanic." If, when they heard of the loss of the "Titanic," they had also learned that the "Californian" had either been the means of saving some of those whose lives were unfortunately lost, or had been the means of relieving the sufferings of those who by a merciful providence, were saved, it would, my Lord, have been a great source of consolation to them. I do not desire for one moment, nor is it their intention that I should, in any way minimise the importance of the duty which, in accordance with the best traditions of the sea, rests upon the masters of all ships, to render, if they can, assistance to others who may be in distress. My Lord, I think I might be allowed to read a telegram, which I find in "Lloyd's Weekly Shipping Index," which the Leyland Line sent to the 'Californian" as soon as they heard of this disaster, because it shows what their attitude was towards the "Titanic": "The Leyland Company" - the telegram reads - "have instructed the Captain of the 'Californian' by wireless telegraphy to remain near the scene of the wreck and render whatever aid is possible until he is relieved or until his coal supply runs low." My Lord, this shows their desire and their anxiety that the "Californian" should render whatever assistance was at that time possible. If the "Californian" had rendered any assistance to the "Titanic," not only would she have been rendering a service to humanity, but she would also have been rendering a service to the owners themselves, because the "Californian" and the "Titanic" both belonged to the same great International Mercantile Marine Company. So much, my Lord, for the owners.
Now, I wish to say a word on behalf of myself, because although I have been present very rarely during the course of this Enquiry some of my friends who have been present have told me that my position as an advocate for the "Californian" is not altogether an enviable one, and I appreciate that in addressing your Lordship now, I am to some extent appealing from your Lordship to your Lordship, because I have seen from time to time the observations that have been made with reference to what has been compendiously called the "Californian" incident. My Lord, all I desire is, if I may be allowed, with your Lordship's permission, to put before you a number of considerations which I ask your Lordship to entertain, and to give them whatever weight your Lordship may, on reflection, think they deserve. And the first submission which I have to make to your Lordship is that the vessel whose lights or whose rockets were seen by those on board the "Californian' was not the "Titanic," and the vessel whose lights were seen by those on board the "Titanic" was not the Californian," and I hope to satisfy your Lordship that the evidence, in whatever way the evidence is tested, leads to no other conclusion. My Lord, may I first deal with the position of the "Californian" herself, and invite your Lordship's attention to the logbook. According to the logbook, the "Californian" was lying stopped in latitude 42 degrees 5 minutes North, which is admitted to be about 20 miles North by East of the place where the "Titanic" had struck the iceberg. This position was given by the Master at Question 6704, and while the Master was in the witness-box no one challenged the accuracy of that position. It was fixed by dead reckoning, and verified from time to time by observations. In the first place, there was the observation at noon. I have a chart here, my Lord, in which I have traced the course of the "Californian" back from the position at which she was lying stopped, and I should like to hand that up to your Lordship in order that your Lordship may compare it with the corresponding track of the "Titanic" at the various times. (The chart was handed to his Lordship.) That is the chart I have prepared for my own guidance I have not another copy, but I have a rough copy here which will enable me to explain. Your Lordship will see the noon position, 42.5 North and 47.25 West.
The Commissioner:
Is this document that we have had handed in the log or a copy of the log?
Mr. Dunlop:
My Lord, it was the original log that was produced by the Witnesses. If it is the same log it would be the original.
The Commissioner:
It appears to be all in the handwriting of the mate.
Mr. Dunlop:
The Chief Officer. He was the man who said he wrote up the log.
The Attorney-General:
He wrote it up from the scrap.
Continued >
