British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 33
Final Arguments, cont.
The Commissioner:
Then one or other must be mistaken?
Mr. Dunlop:
One or other must be mistaken, but the weight of the evidence is that it was the red light or different vessels.
The Commissioner:
Or the "Titanic" swinging?
Mr. Dunlop:
No, it could not be the "Titanic" swinging, because Captain Lord is referring to a period before the "Titanic" struck the iceberg.
The Commissioner:
He said about half-past 11, did he not?
Mr. Dunlop:
He says here at 11 o'clock; he keeps her in view until she stops, about 11.30. During the time she is approaching him she is showing a green light; that is his evidence. The evidence of the others is that she was not showing her green light, but was showing her red light.
The Commissioner:
She would show her green light, I suppose, before the collision?
Mr. Dunlop:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
But after the collision we cannot tell what she showed.
Mr. Dunlop:
Yes, my Lord, according to the evidence; the evidence is she starboarded two points for the iceberg.
The Commissioner:
Yes, but you do not know what happened to her after that?
Mr. Dunlop:
According to the evidence of Boxhall the Fourth Officer, Question 15419: "She did not swing at all after the engines were stopped." He was asked that question whether her head did fall off either to starboard or port, and the answer was no; her helm was starboarded, and after the engines were stopped, her heading did not alter.
The Attorney-General:
There is some evidence about it which I think your Lordship has in mind. That is Rowe's evidence on page 419.
Mr. Dunlop:
As far as I can see there is no reliable evidence from any Witnesses -
The Commissioner:
I do not know what that means.
Mr. Dunlop:
There is no evidence from anyone on the bridge. The Fourth Officer was the man who after the collision happened ascertained the "Titanic's" position with a view to communicating by wireless telegraphy with other vessels. He was the person who, if the vessel did alter her heading, would be the person most likely to know, and he was asked specifically the question. He said: no, she did not alter her heading after the engines were stopped. After that time the alteration of heading was to port, under a starboard helm, an alteration which could not possibly open the red light to any vessel to the northward of her. But I am not so much concerned with the sidelight seen after the "Titanic" struck the iceberg as the sidelight which was seen before 11.40, while the vessel which they describe came up and stopped in the ice; because that is the time when we know that the "Titanic" was steering West and would, if she was in sight, be showing to the "Californian" her green light. At that time the body of the evidence is that she was showing her red light.
The Commissioner:
Of course, if that was before the collision the steamer that the Captain of the "Californian" saw would be in the same position that the "Titanic" would be in, showing her green light.
Mr. Dunlop:
She would be a vessel to the Southward.
The Commissioner:
Showing the green light.
Mr. Dunlop:
Yes, any vessel to the Southward of him, bound West, would be showing the green light.
The Commissioner:
And, therefore, so far as it goes, she was showing the light that the "Titanic" would be showing.
Mr. Dunlop:
Showing that light to him at the time he had it under observation between 11 and 11.30.
The Commissioner:
Yes.
Mr. Dunlop:
But the Third Officer - and it was the Third Officer on whose evidence your Lordship seemed to be placing most reliance at the time -
The Commissioner:
What is his name?
Mr. Dunlop:
Groves. Groves, at Question 8228, is very emphatic about it; she was never showing her green light, but she was showing her red light, and he was the gentleman who went off duty at twelve o'clock. He had her under observation from eleven to twelve; and on that point his evidence was supported by that of the Second Officer and Gibson, who were watching her between 12 and 2, and the sidelight these three saw was the red light and not the green.
The Commissioner:
What Groves says at Question 8228 is this: "Did you see any navigation lights?" He has just said, you know, that he saw two masthead lights. "Did you see any navigation lights - sidelights? - (A.) I saw the red port lights. (The Commissioner.) When did you see that? - (A.) As soon as her deck light disappeared from my view." That would be possible, I should say probable, when her helm was being starboarded.
Mr. Dunlop:
But, my Lord, she could not open her red light.
The Commissioner:
But you do not know. Her deck lights would disappear very likely, she might be pointing stern on towards the "Californian."
Mr. Dunlop:
Not as the result of starboarding her helm, if she starboards two points from W. to W.S.W.
The Commissioner:
No, that is true.
Mr. Dunlop:
To every vessel to the northward of her she would be showing her green light. The effect of starboarding might be to show her stern lights, but it could not bring her bow round so as to show the port light. That is carried out by the bearings which the Third Officer gave. He said the steamer, when he first saw her, was about 12 miles off, bearing South. It does not matter, for this purpose, what the heading of the "Californian" was. Half-an-hour later he sees her about six miles distant, bearing S.S.E. That indicates a vessel steering somewhere about N.E., not a vessel during that time going to the westward as the "Titanic" was. The movements which the Witnesses from the "Californian" described as to what the vessel which they saw did, were not what the "Titanic" did. They saw a steamer navigating, apparently slowly, through field ice; they give the bearings, and they give the time between these bearings. The "Titanic" was, in fact, going 22 knots in clear water; according to her evidence, she was not in the neighbourhood of field ice at all. She continued going at this speed until shortly before she struck the iceberg. What the Witnesses from the "Californian" saw was a vessel coming up from the field ice and then stopping, and apparently they see a vessel which is bound, not to America, as the "Titanic" was, but bound to some European port, and, therefore, showing to them her red light, and, apparently, to the Third Officer, steering about N.E. And that is also what Gill, the donkeyman, described, because, although his glimpse was only a momentary one, what he saw of the vessel was a vessel apparently heading in the same way as the "Californian" was, and the evidence from the "Californian" is that at that time she was heading about N.N.E. by the compass, which would be about N.E. true. The vessel, therefore, which Gill saw would not be the "Titanic," but heading in the opposite direction. There is no evidence that the 'Titanic" turned round before she sank and headed in the direction of Europe.
The Commissioner:
Gill appears to have thought that the steamer that was visible was out of the field ice. That is so, is it not? He says he looked and he could see the edge of the field ice, in which they were, about five miles away.
Mr. Dunlop:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
And the steamer that he saw was five miles further away and, therefore, would be in open water.
Mr. Dunlop:
My Lord, I should have thought that evidence was extremely unreliable; the evidence of a donkeyman going forward to call his mate at midnight. He would not in the ordinary course of things notice how far the ice extended and whether the vessel that he saw was navigating in clear water or not.
The Commissioner:
Gill did not give me the impression of a man who wanted to make a case against his ship.
Mr. Dunlop:
My Lord, he may not have given your Lordship that impression, but -
The Commissioner:
Do you suggest he came here with a desire, I will not say with an intention to deceive, but with a desire to make out that it was the "Titanic" they did see?
Mr. Dunlop:
Yes, my Lord, I think he did, and I think he did for this reason. This donkeyman hearing of the loss of the "Titanic" the next morning, a few days later arrived in New York, interviewed by New York reporters, giving evidence at the American Inquiry, his imagination got fired by all this excitement and he began to imagine that the steamer of which he had a momentary glimpse was in fact the "Titanic." I submit that from whatever point of view you test the evidence of the "Californian," either as regards the class of vessels seen, the lights seen, the movements which they describe as having seen, they all point to the same conclusion that the vessel which they saw was not and could not have been the "Titanic."
That is further corroborated by the evidence of the Master of the "Carpathia," whose evidence your Lordship will probably be inclined to accept. In his depositions, which your Lordship will find at page 746, Question 25551, he says: "I approached the position of the "Titanic," 41.46 N.L. 50.14 W.L. on a course substantially N. 52 W. (true), reaching the first boat shortly after 4 a.m. It was daylight at about 4.20 a.m." That is of importance. "At five o'clock it was light enough to see all round the horizon. We then saw two steamships to the northwards, perhaps 7 or 8 miles distant. Neither of them was the 'Californian.' One of them was a four-masted steamer with one funnel, and the other a two-masted steamer with one funnel. I never saw the "Mount Temple" to identify her. The first time that I saw the "Californian" was about 8 o'clock on the morning of 15th April. She was then about 5 to 6 six miles distant, bearing W.S.W. (true), and steaming towards the 'Carpathia.'" It is not until 8 o'clock in the morning that the "Californian" comes within sight of the "Carpathia"; at that time she was about 6 miles distant. She is about half-an-hour's steaming away from the "Californian" at that time. Put the "Californian" back an hour and a half steaming, one hour at full speed and thirty minutes at slow, and it follows in my submission that the "Californian," before she came in sight of the "Carpathia," must have come from a position some 20 miles north of the "Titanic's" position. If the vessel which was seen was the "Titanic," if the "Titanic" was in sight of the "Californian," it is impossible that the Master of the "Carpathia" could have missed seeing the "Californian" as soon as he came up to the "Titanic's" position at about 4 o'clock in the morning. Instead of that, there were four hours during which the "Californian" was not in sight at all.
The evidence from the "Titanic" also shows that the "Californian" was not in sight at any time. Before 11.40 your Lordship has the evidence of the look-out men who were in the crow's-nest, Lee and Fleet. Neither of those men at any time between 10 and 12, when they were in the crow's-nest, saw the lights of any steamer, and if the "Californian" had then been 10 or 5 miles, or whatever distance, the Witnesses from the "Californian" have stated the vessel which they saw was, they could not have helped seeing the lights of the "Californian." But neither of them saw anything of the kind. Hogg relieved Fleet and Lee at midnight, and went into the crow's-nest, and was there until he was called out of the crow's-nest and went away in one of the boats. During the time he was in the crow's-nest, and no doubt anxiously looking for lights, he did not see any lights; he did not see the "Californian's" lights, nor did he see the Morse signals of the "Californian," which would, of course, show a greater distance than the ordinary navigation lights. So that up to the time when the "Titanic" struck the berg, the "Californian" was not in sight of the "Titanic." But a number of Witnesses from the "Titanic" have described the lights which they either saw from the "Titanic" after the vessel struck or which they saw when they were in the boats. Most of the Witnesses from the "Titanic" who saw any lights at all saw the light or lights of a fishing vessel, that is the light which most of them speak of - that is the Second Officer at Questions 13984 and 14137; the Third Officer of the "Titanic" at Question 15061; the two Quartermasters at Questions 1338 and 17660; the three look-out men at Questions 2566 and 11478 and 17363, and also Mr. Ismay at Question 18584. The only lights which these Witnesses saw, representing as I say two Officers, two quartermasters, three look-out men, and Mr. Ismay, were the lights of a fishing boat or fishing boats. Others, like Scott, the greaser, saw a light on another of the "Titanic's" own lifeboats. Scott, at Question 5663; Beauchamp, the fireman, and I think some others saw lights which afterwards proved to be the lights of the "Carpathia," but no other lights. That is Question 810. But Boxhall, the Fourth Officer; Lucas, an A.B.; and Hart, a Steward, saw some time between 1 and 2 a steamer which approached, and to which they signalled by Morse signals; they saw her approach, and later on they saw her steam away. They are the only Witnesses who mentioned seeing a steamer at all, and that was not until some time between 1 and 2. They saw a steamer which approached at that time between 1 and 2, obviously not the "Californian," because the "Californian" at that time was lying stopped in the ice. She unfortunately was stopped until 6 o'clock in the morning. The steamer which they saw approached, and then steamed away. The "Californian" when she began to approach the scene of the disaster continued to approach until she actually got there; she never steamed away. The steamer which Boxhall said he saw was never seen or heard of again. The "Californian" came up to the "Carpathia" about 8.30. The steamer which they saw was not using Morse signals; the "Californian" was.
The Commissioner: My attention is drawn here to Boxhall's evidence at page 357, Question 15409: "What distance do you suppose her to be away? - (A.) I judged her to be between 5 and 6 miles when I Morsed to her, and then she turned round. She was turning very, very slowly, until at last I only saw her stern light, and that was just before I went away in the boat." And I think there is evidence from the "Californian" that the "Californian" turned slowly.
The Attorney-General:
Certainly.
Mr. Dunlop:
She turned slowly at 10.21 or half-past 10.
The Commissioner:
She went on turning, I think?
Mr. Dunlop:
Until her head came about N.N.E. Her head went round because the Master, when he stopped his engines for the ice, at the same time put his helm hard over and turned his vessel's head round. But there is no evidence that her head went round to such a position as to show to a vessel to the Southward of her stern light. Boxhall, Lucas, and Hart, when describing a vessel which appeared to steam towards them and then go away again, and that is not the "Californian." That is the whole of the evidence which seems to bear upon this question.
The Commissioner:
Is there any evidence to show that the "Californian" saw this steamer or the vessel or the lights that the Witnesses from the "Titanic" say they saw.
Mr. Dunlop:
I do not know whether this steamer which Boxhall is referring to is or is not the steamer which the Chief Officer of the "Californian" saw at four o'clock, a vessel which had been steaming to the S.W. and afterwards was seen steaming to the N.E. or steaming in a Northerly and Easterly direction. That is the only evidence which seems to connect the vessel which Boxhall saw with any vessel which the "Californian" saw.
But I will deal later with the vessels which were in this vicinity at about this time. That is the whole of the evidence which seems to bear upon this question whether the "Californian" and the "Titanic" were ever in sight of each other, and I submit to your Lordship that the conclusion of the whole evidence, the "Titanic's" evidence, the "Carpathia's" evidence, and the "Californian's" evidence, all point to the same conclusion that they were never in sight of each other. If that is so, then the whole foundation of the charge against Captain Lord disappears. The whole significance of what is described as the "Californian" incident at once vanishes if the vessels were never in fact in sight of each other. In that case the rockets seen could not possibly have been the rockets of the "Titanic," but must have been the rockets of another vessel which we have not, unfortunately, got before the Court.
The next question to which I desire to address myself is what steamer was it which the "Californian" saw and the Fourth Officer of the "Titanic" saw and signalled to. Probably they were different steamers. If it was not the "Titanic" it does not concern me what the steamer was.
The Commissioner:
Have you made any attempt to find out what the steamers were?
Mr. Dunlop:
Personally, my Lord, I have from the only source available to me, namely, Lloyd's weekly index.
The Commissioner:
And have you found out?
Mr. Dunlop:
Yes, my Lord, I have found out some vessels which I have put on your Lordship's chart; but, of course, it would ill become the Leyland Line to endeavour to ascertain the name of a steamer which may have seen the "Titanic's" rockets and did not in fact go to her assistance; it is no part of my purpose. It would ill become the Leyland Line to make enquiries from the Masters or owners of other vessels with a view to showing that there was a vessel nearer to the "Titanic" than the "Californian" herself was, and, therefore, we have made no effort.
The Commissioner:
Why would it ill become them?
Mr. Dunlop:
I submit that for them to bring evidence with a view to showing that there was a vessel nearer to the "Titanic" than the "Californian" was, which we know did not in fact go to the "Titanic's" assistance, or did not in fact render any effective assistance, would only be to involve some other vessel in the criticisms which have been made in the course of this Enquiry.
The Commissioner:
I think it would be your duty to do it.
Mr. Dunlop:
Well, my Lord, the view which my clients have taken, and I respectfully agree with them, is that for one shipowner to endeavour to throw blame upon a steamer belonging to some other owner is not what I should have thought would be the loyalty owed by one shipowner to another. It is no part of my purpose and certainly no part of theirs to attempt to throw blame upon any other vessel.
The Commissioner:
This is a very high sense of duty; I do not appreciate it at all.
Mr. Dunlop:
My Lord, they have not, in fact, done so, but I have had sent to me Lloyd's Shipping Index, which records the reports of vessels which were in the ice at about this time, and from that index I have been able to locate the position of certain vessels which may or may not have been the vessels which were in sight of the "Californian" or in sight of the "Titanic." The reason why we cannot put the name to this steamer which we saw is that the evidence before your Lordship is wholly incomplete on this part of the case. When this Enquiry was instituted this question was not formulated. No evidence was directed to ascertaining what vessels were in the vicinity. The only evidence before the Court is the evidence of vessels which were provided with and were, in fact, using the Marconi apparatus. We know the names of a number of vessels that were somewhere in this neighbourhood because we have heard the names in connection with these Marconi messages and some of the Masters of those steamers have as a result been called as Witnesses. But there are a great many - there must have been other steamers navigating in this busy highway - which were not provided with Marconi apparatus, and which were not, in fact, if they were provided with it, using the Marconi apparatus, just as the "Californian" was not during the midnight hours; and unless they had Marconi apparatus we are not able to ascertain their names.
No attempt has apparently been made by the Board of Trade to obtain a list of the vessels which were somewhere in this neighbourhood on the night in question; information which no doubt it would be difficult to obtain; but if it had been obtained your Lordship might have been able to get the name of the vessel which I can do no more than describe, a vessel which was apparently bound to Europe, which appeared to be a tramp steamer, which was not provided with Marconi apparatus, and apparently did not use or did not understand Morse signalling. We can only describe the vessel we saw; we cannot put a name to her, and we have not got this vessel before the Court. There is no reason why this vessel should have come before this Court. The circumstances of the "Californian" are such as I think would rather induce Masters to keep away from the Court; they have excellent reasons for keeping away rather than for coming here to say that they were in the vicinity and had an opportunity of rendering assistance, but for some reason or another they were not, in fact, able to do so. The steamers seen by the "Californian" or the "Titanic" may have been either of the two which are mentioned in the deposition of the Master of the "Carpathia."
Now, may I refer your Lordship again to the deposition of the Master of the "Carpathia," on page 746, when he speaks of two vessels other than the "Mount Temple," which he saw at or about five o'clock in the morning - one a four-masted steamer with one funnel and the other a two-masted steamer with one funnel. We do not know the names of either of those two steamers; we do not know to whom they belonged, where they were bound, or where they came from; but clearly these two vessels were at this time near the neighbourhood of the scene of the "Titanic's" loss. It may well have been that the vessel which was seen from the "Californian" was one or other of these two vessels, and it may have been that the vessel which the Fourth Officer of the "Titanic" saw was one or other of these two vessels.
Further, the evidence from the "Californian" shows that there were three, or possibly four, other steamers in this neighbourhood whose names we do not know. The Master described at Question 7400 a vessel which he say - a two-masted steamer with a pink funnel and a black top, apparently steering to the North-West. Stone, the Chief Officer, at Question 8017, saw, just after 4 o'clock, a steamer with two masthead lights heading to the Eastward or North-East; and at Question 8095 saw three other steamers next morning. Groves, at Question 650, saw a four-masted steamer which he thought afterwards was the "Carpathia," but he must be wrong about that because, according to the "Carpathia" the "Carpathia" and the "Californian" were not in sight of each other until 8 o'clock in the morning. Therefore the steamer that he saw was probably not the "Carpathia." At Question 8339 he says he saw two other vessels. That is Groves, my Lord.
The Chief Officer, Stewart, says at 4 a.m. he saw two masthead lights at Question 8598, and at 8905 he says that at daylight he saw that she had a yellow funnel, and was not the "Carpathia." It is impossible for your Lordship to say, that the vessel which the "Californian" saw was not one or other of the two vessels mentioned by the Master of the "Carpathia" or one or other of the three or four vessels which were seen next morning by those on board the "Californian." As I say, we do not know their names, because they were not mentioned in the Marconi messages. They either had not themselves or were not using the wireless telegraphy.
I have looked through Lloyd's Weekly Shipping Index for the months of April and May. They mostly contain the reports of vessels that were bound to America. The reports of vessels bound to Europe would not be received at Lloyd's till probably a good deal later. I have only seen those five numbers of Lloyd's Weekly Shipping Index, but the Index, so far as it goes, does mention certain vessels and states the position in which they were, and if I may just refer to one or two of these vessels and describe what their movements were as recorded by themselves, then your Lordship will see that there were vessels in this neighbourhood between the "Californian" and the "Titanic." Has your Lordship the chart before you.
The Commissioner:
Yes.
Mr. Dunlop:
When I read through this Shipping Index, I did so with that chart, and I plotted at the time on that chart the positions in order that I might follow the significance of what I was reading. I first take the "Trautenfels."
The Commissioner:
What is the "Trautenfels"?
Mr. Dunlop:
She is a two-masted black funnel steamer with red stripes, belonging to the Hansa Line at Bremen, and she is mentioned in Lloyd's Weekly Shipping Index of Thursday, the 2nd May, 1912.
The Commissioner:
Has she any Marconi apparatus?
Mr. Dunlop:
No, my Lord, she has not.
The Commissioner:
What is her size?
Mr. Dunlop:
My Lord, I do not know that; she is not in Lloyd's book.
The Commissioner:
Is she a passenger ship?
Mr. Dunlop:
I do not think so, my Lord; she carries petroleum, I think.
The Commissioner:
Then I should think she is not a passenger ship.
Mr. Dunlop:
I am told she is not the petroleum one; she belongs to the Hansa Line. She may or may not be a passenger steamer. It does not say in the Shipping Index.
The Commissioner:
What is her size, and where is she registered?
Mr. Dunlop:
Two thousand nine hundred and thirty-two tons is her tonnage.
The Commissioner:
She is a big ship.
Mr. Dunlop:
She was from Hamburg bound to New York.
The Commissioner:
What was she carrying; she was not carrying petroleum then you know.
Mr. Dunlop:
I am told she is not the petroleum steamer; that is the next one.
The Commissioner:
Well what is she?
Mr. Dunlop:
I do not know what she is. I only know what I am told here, and I will tell your Lordship what I am told here: "Trautenfels," Hansa, tonnage 2,932, left Hamburg 31st March, bound for New York, spoken on the 7th of April, and then she sends a report which I am going to read to your Lordship.
The Commissioner:
How do you find out she was at this particular spot?
Mr. Dunlop:
May I come to that now?
The Commissioner:
Yes.
Mr. Dunlop:
I will hand up to your Lordship the Index. Will your Lordship look at page 8 of Lloyd's Weekly Shipping Index under date 2nd May, 1912.
The Commissioner:
Now let us see that (The same was handed to the Commissioner.)
Mr. Dunlop:
The F is a mistake for T, because in the same number she is described as the "Frautenfels." There is no such vessel as the "Frautenfels"; there is one "Trautenfels." "Reports April 14th in latitude 42.1, longitude 49.53; sighted two icebergs fully 200 feet long and 50 feet high; soon after heavy field ice was encountered which extended for a distance of 30 miles and made it necessary for the steamer to run in a S.W. direction for 25 miles to clear it. In the field ice 30 bergs were counted, some very large. In the Northward no clear water was seen, so that the Captain estimated that the ice in that direction must have extended fully 30 miles long."
The Attorney-General:
What is it you are reading from?
Mr. Dunlop:
From Lloyd's Weekly Shipping Index under date 2nd May, 1912.
The Commissioner:
What time?
Mr. Dunlop:
We have not got that.
The Commissioner:
Then why have you marked her down on this chart?
Continued >
