British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 33
Final Arguments, cont.
Mr. Dunlop:
That is the latitude in which she is reported on the 14th April. I have not got the time. I can only mark there the latitude which she has given. It may have been any time. It may not have been the vessel which we saw. I cannot put it as high as that, because we do not know at what time she was in this latitude. All we do know is she was there at some time on the 14th April, and she did what the Witnesses from the "Californian" described the vessel which they saw did. They saw a vessel encounter ice and then run in a S.W. direction until she went out of sight.
The Commissioner:
What light of this vessel did you see, a green light, or a red light?
Mr. Dunlop:
She would be showing her green light.
The Commissioner:
Yes, but what is your evidence of the light that you saw? One of the Witnesses said the green light.
Mr. Dunlop:
The Master saw a green light.
The Commissioner:
Two of the Witnesses saw a red light.
Mr. Dunlop:
Three. The others all saw a red light.
The Commissioner:
Then you know this cannot be the ship if the red light is the right thing - this cannot be the one you saw.
Mr. Dunlop:
I am quite content if it is not. If your Lordship takes it as the red light we saw of a steamer, then it is clearly not the "Titanic." That throws the "Titanic" out.
The Commissioner:
I quite appreciate that.
Mr. Dunlop:
I am assuming for this purpose a vessel showing a green light, and the only significance of this is the extraordinary coincidence that what this vessel describes as having done on the 14th April is what the Witnesses from the "Californian" say the steamer which they saw did.
The Commissioner:
Where did you first come across the "Lloyd's Weekly Shipping Index" of the 2nd of May?
Mr. Dunlop:
Well, I asked for it, my Lord, because I knew that reports were received, and I asked Messrs. Cooper, who instruct me, to get for me some copies of "Lloyd's Weekly Index" for about this period.
The Commissioner:
It is very nearly two months ago. Where is the "Trautenfels" now?
Mr. Dunlop:
I do not know, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
Have you found out her owners?
Mr. Dunlop:
She appears to belong to the Hansa Line.
The Commissioner:
Have you communicated with the Hansa Line?
Mr. Dunlop:
No.
The Commissioner:
Was that because you did not want to know what they would say?
Mr. Dunlop:
No, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
Then, why did you not communicate with them?
Mr. Dunlop:
Because it is no part of our purpose; it is no part of the object with which we are here to say the "Trautenfels" did anything wrong, and I do not want to suggest that "Trautenfels" failed to render assistance or had any opportunity of rendering assistance.
The Commissioner:
She would not be likely, I agree, to assist you if that was your object.
Mr. Dunlop:
No, and it would be unfair to approach them.
The Commissioner:
I do not agree with you about being unfair at all, but I do agree to this, that if she knew what you were about she would not be likely to help you.
Mr. Dunlop:
No, my Lord, and we could not have asked them without telling them what our object was.
The Commissioner:
At all events you have not attempted to get any information from her.
Mr. Dunlop:
No, my Lord, because I have found from the "Index" this information, and when I found it from reading this through one evening with that chart before me, I put the marks on the chart which your Lordship has before you now. So much for the "Trautenfels."
The Attorney-General:
I think I ought to tell your Lordship - I did not know it till this moment - that we have been making some inquiries with reference to it. There is a reference to the "Trautenfels" in consequence of the funnels - the colour of the funnels and description - we traced that it might be one of the Hansa line, and we have been in communication about it to see if we could ascertain. The letter that I have is from the Treasury Department of the United States Customs Service at the Port of Boston, to which the "Trautenfels" was bound, a letter of the 23rd May. I will read it so that your Lordship may have such information as we have got.
The Commissioner:
Would you like to have it read?
Mr. Dunlop:
Oh, yes.
The Commissioner:
I think perhaps it had better be read.
The Attorney-General:
We have made a great number of enquiries for the purpose of ascertaining if we can find out what the vessels were.
The Commissioner:
What question is expressly directed to the conduct of the "Californian"?
The Attorney-General:
Well, I think it is 24.
Mr. Dunlop:
It is wide enough to cover the "Trautenfels."
The Commissioner:
That is not the one.
The Attorney-General:
It is the one that covers the "Californian"; that is, if your Lordship has the amended question.
The Commissioner:
I am afraid I have not.
The Attorney-General:
I amended it so as to include the "Californian."
The Commissioner:
What was the amendment?
The Attorney-General:
"What vessels had an opportunity of rendering assistance to the 'Titanic,' and, if any, how was it that assistance did not reach the 'Titanic' before the 'Carpathia' arrived?" It is the second of those two questions that really is the material one. I do not think the first is material at all.
The Commissioner:
What is the second?
The Attorney-General:
The second of those two questions I just read, "How was it that assistance did not reach the 'Titanic' before the 'Carpathia' arrived?" It was framed for the purpose of meeting this point and putting a question to cover it.
The letter is from the Treasury Department, United States Customs Service Boston, to the Commissioner of Navigation at Washington, dated 23rd May, 1912. "In reply to Bureau letter (62052.), dated 21st instant, I beg to report that the only steamships known to this office which have a funnel resembling the one described in Bureau letter are those of the Hansa Line. There is an illustration in Part VI. of the list of merchant vessels for 1911. The 'Trautenfels' of that line arrived at this port early in the morning on 18th April, and the 'Lindenfels' on 20th April. As I am informed that the voyage from the locality mentioned by the Bureau to this port is from three to five days, according to the speed of the steamer, the 'Trautenfels' would probably not have been in that locality on 15th April. The steamers of this line do not clear foreign from this port, but proceed to New York with residue of cargo. The s.s. "Inverclyde,' sailing on the American and Oriental Line arrived 22nd April. I have been unable to obtain a description of her funnel. I presume that it can be obtained from the agents in New York. No vessel having a funnel like that described by the Bureau cleared foreign from this port within a period of two weeks prior to 15th April."
Mr. Dunlop:
That does not seem to carry the matter much further. What we are dealing with here is a vessel which has given us her position on the 14th of April.
The Commissioner:
At some time.
Mr. Dunlop:
Yes, at some time. I cannot put it higher than that, and do not wish to - at some time on the 14th April, and the funnel bears a remarkable resemblance to the funnel of one of the steamers which the Witnesses described, black with a red top.
The Attorney-General:
It is the 15th of April, is it not?
Mr. Dunlop:
The report is the 14th. She reports that on that date.
The Commissioner:
Will you refer me to the evidence as to the colour of the funnel.
Mr. Dunlop:
Yes. It is Question 7400.
The Commissioner:
Read it to me.
Mr. Dunlop:
"Was there another vessel near the 'Mount Temple'? - (A.) There was a two-masted steamer, pink funnel, black top, steering North down to the North-West."
The Commissioner:
Will you tell me when that was?
Mr. Dunlop:
That was on the morning of the 15th.
The Commissioner:
What time?
Mr. Dunlop:
Between 6.30 and 7.30.
The Commissioner:
Could that possibly be this vessel?
Mr. Dunlop:
Yes, my Lord, it could. It depends entirely at what time this vessel was in the position which I have marked on your Lordship's chart. We do not know what that time was.
The Commissioner:
That was on the 14th.
Mr. Dunlop:
If that was on the night of the 14th, then the position at which this vessel was seen -
The Commissioner:
Supposing it was on the night of the 14th.
Mr. Dunlop:
If it was the night of the 14th she would be in the position -
The Commissioner:
She then began to steer a South-Westerly course.
Mr. Dunlop:
Yes, to try to get out of the ice, apparently.
The Commissioner:
How many knots does she make?
Mr. Dunlop:
I do not know.
The Commissioner:
You could not tell where she had got to by 6 o'clock in the morning?
Mr. Dunlop:
No, it depends upon what speed she was going, and we do not know that; and that depends upon what ice she was encountering which she describes in the report. She apparently steamed 25 miles through ice, through an ice-field which he describes as heavy field ice containing some 30 bergs. I cannot put this higher than that with the information contained in Lloyd's Index it is possible that was the vessel which those on board the "Californian" saw.
Then, my Lord, there is the steamship "Paula." She is the petroleum steamer.
The Commissioner:
Is she also in this same newspaper?
Mr. Dunlop:
On page 11 of the 9th of May number.
The Commissioner:
Have you given us the best one?
Mr. Dunlop:
Yes, the "Trautenfels" is the best, because she steams to the S.W.
The Commissioner:
The "Trautenfels" is the best you have got, you say?
Mr. Dunlop:
Yes; the "Paula" is very good.
The Commissioner:
Are they all very good?
Mr. Dunlop:
These are the two best, my Lord, because these are the only two which gave us their position on the 14th April.
The Attorney-General:
Have you a description of the "Paula"?
Mr. Dunlop:
Yes. The "Paula" is a three masted oil tank steamer of 2,748 tons gross with a black funnel and a red R. I have got her funnel here. It is a black funnel with yellow and a red R on the yellow, and she belongs to the Deutscher-Americana Petroleum Company of Hamburg.
The Commissioner:
What size was she?
Mr. Dunlop:
She is 2,748 tons. She gives her position.
The Commissioner:
She is a petroleum ship.
Mr. Dunlop:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
She is not likely to look like a passenger boat?
Mr. Dunlop:
No, she would look more like what the Master and Second Officer and Gibson say, a medium-sized vessel, apparently a tramp, not having the appearance of a passenger steamer.
The Commissioner:
Would she have her funnel aft?
Mr. Dunlop:
That I do not know, my Lord; I think not.
The Commissioner:
I am told a tank steamer always has its machinery and funnel aft?
Mr. Dunlop:
Well, your Lordship is informed about that. It may not have been. I do not wish to take up time going through the position she gives, but your Lordship will see on the number of the Index that I have handed up.
The Commissioner:
I see where you have marked her on the chart.
Mr. Dunlop:
That is transferring to the chart the latitude and longitude which she gives. Again, my Lord, we are not told the times; we only know those were the positions which she reported as having been in at some time on the 14th of April. There, again, your Lordship will see a steamer going to the Westward and then apparently steaming a South-Westerly direction in order to avoid the ice-field. In addition to these vessels there are some others, the "Memphian," the "Campanillo," and the "President Lincoln." I have put their positions on the chart.
The Commissioner:
Is the "Memphian" on the chart.
Mr. Dunlop:
Yes, I think so. I do not know anything about the "Memphian." She is not in Lloyd's Register. I am told the "Paula," and the "Trautenfels," are both in Lloyd's Register, but the "Memphian" is not. I ought to say that the "Campanillo" and the "President Lincoln" both had Marconi apparatus.
The Attorney-General:
I have some information about the "Paula," if it is of any use.
Enquiries have been made of a very extensive character for the purpose of dealing with this point. This has gone through the Board of Trade to the Foreign Office to America to make enquiries. This is the answer on May 27th, from the Treasury Department of the United States Customs Service, Port of Arthur, Texas: "I have the honour to reply to your letter 62052-N of May 21st, 1912, relative to a vessel in the vicinity of the "Titanic" disaster, and to say that I am unable to find any vessel with a black funnel and white band that has entered here since the disaster that would have been in the vicinity at or about the time of the disaster. The German steamer "Paula" (oil tank), Rieke, Master, and owned by the Deutscher-Americana Petroleum Gesellschaft, of Hamburg, W. T. Worden, 26, Broadway, New York, American agent, arrived at the Port of Sabine, this district, on April 29th, and the Master stated that he passed through the ice-field on Sunday a few hours before the "Titanic," and that, finding the ice getting worse, he changed course directly to the South for 25 or more miles. It may be possible that Captain Rieke may have seen the vessel of which you request information. The "Paula" cleared hence for Ozelosund, Sweden," I do not think it helps very much.
Mr. Dunlop:
What I submit is that the evidence before your Lordship on this part of the case is so imperfect, so incomplete, that it would be wrong to infer that the vessel which was seen was the "Californian," because your Lordship is not able to put a name to the other vessels which the Witnesses have described. That is the reason why I have mentioned these other vessels.
Then there is the question: Why did the steamer which the "Californian" saw exhibit rockets? The answer to that question is that we do not know, because nobody has been called from that steamer, whatever she was. All we can do is to speculate.
The Commissioner:
You may be wrong about that. A number of people were called from the "Titanic."
Mr. Dunlop:
Yes, but if it was not the "Titanic"?
The Commissioner:
I agree that if it was not the "Titanic," nobody has been called from this steamer.
Mr. Dunlop:
Nobody has been called from the steamer and therefore we can only speculate as to why it was that this steamer which the "Californian" Witnesses describe was seen exhibiting rockets. They have given their explanation and put forward their theories, and I want to mention the theories which have been put forward to your Lordship, because I submit that the theories of the men who were on the spot, who not only saw the rockets, but also saw the movements and the class of vessel that was exhibiting the rockets, is very much more likely to be right than the opinion of people who like ourselves were not there. The explanation of these rockets in the first place may be that they were answering rockets, that they were rockets fired by a vessel which was between the "Californian" and the "Titanic," fired in answer to some other vessel which may have been in distress; or, it may be that the vessel which fired the rockets had sustained the kind of damage which a vessel is likely to sustain in field ice; she may have broken a blade or two of her propeller or damaged her rudder and wanted a tow in daylight. She may have been signaling to the "Californian" to stand by till daylight with a view to towing her if she required towage in the morning.
The Commissioner:
I do not know; do people signal by means of rockets in such a way as to indicate a request to stand by?
Mr. Dunlop:
It is the only means.
The Commissioner:
I thought the signals were "Come to our assistance," not to stand by.
Mr. Dunlop:
My Lord, there is no other signal to the eye, if you exclude Morse signalling, than rockets.
The Commissioner:
Would rockets mean, or may they mean, "We are foundering"?
Mr. Dunlop:
It may mean that and it may mean a great deal less than that.
The Commissioner:
You do not stand by at a distance of 10 miles for that.
Mr. Dunlop:
The evidence is 6 miles.
The Commissioner:
You go to the vessel, at least, I should think so. What is the use of standing by 6 miles away when a vessel is going down to the bottom? I do not know.
Mr. Dunlop:
No, my Lord, but supposing this vessel was not going down to the bottom?
The Commissioner:
We do not know whether she was or was not.
Mr. Dunlop:
No.
The Commissioner:
Are you going to stand off 6 miles away and trust to chance and say to yourselves "She may be going down to the bottom or she may not, so we will stay here"?
Mr. Dunlop:
What these Witnesses saw was this: they saw a vessel steaming through field ice and then stopping, and they had this vessel under observation. It may well have been that this steamer stopped because owing to moving in field ice she had damaged her propeller or her rudder, stops for the purpose of making an examination, discovers on examination that she has damaged her rudder or propeller, sees a vessel some five or six miles away which she may want to tow her when towage is possible, and signals to her for that purpose. She has no other means of conveying to that other vessel the request that that other vessel shall stand by her. At least, I know of no other signal. If she has wireless telegraphy she may do it by wireless or she may use Morse signals, but this vessel was not in fact using Morse signals while she was under observation. Eliminating wireless telegraphy and Morse signalling she was using the only means of communication that would be at her disposal.
The first theory, namely, that these signals were not signals of distress in the sense of not being signals from a vessel which was herself in distress, was the theory of the Witnesses from the "Californian," the Witnesses who saw the rockets. It is the view which they say they formed at the time; it is the view which they stated in the witness-box here. I will give your Lordship a reference to Stone's evidence on this point, because Stone and Gibson were the two men on duty at the time these rockets were seen. Stone is Questions 7844, 7856, 7866, 7896 to 7898, 7970, 7993, and 7997. Gibson is Question 7696.
Not only is it the view, they say, they formed at the time, and adhere to here, but it is the view which their reports conveyed at the time to the Master, Question 6917, and the view which their reports conveyed to the Chief Officer when they were relieved by the Chief Officer at 4 o'clock in the morning. That appears in the Chief Officer's evidence at Questions 8582, 8586, 8611, 8862, and 8868.
Ridicule was thrown at the time on this suggestion that a vessel would fire distress rockets as a means of answering some other vessel, but this theory obtained remarkable confirmation a day or two after the "Californian" Witnesses left the witness-box, when we got the evidence from the "Carpathia." The "Carpathia" sent up rockets in order to indicate to those in the "Titanic" that the "Titanic's" distress signals had been recognised and that the "Carpathia" was going to her assistance. I should have thought it was the only means at night if a vessel sees another sending up distress rockets, and wishes to acknowledge that she has seen them and is going to act upon them.
The Commissioner:
Then why did not you send up rockets?
Mr. Dunlop:
We were Morse signalling to her, and we were standing by, so that the theory of the Witnesses themselves is supported by what the "Carpathia" is said to have done at Question 9570; in other words, to sum it up, those rockets were not signals from a vessel in distress; they were answering signals, signals of reply, and not signals of request for assistance. That is their theory. If the Second Officer, who was the only Officer who saw the rockets, had thought they were signals from a vessel herself in distress, what would his conduct have been?
The Commissioner:
That is what I wondered.
Mr. Dunlop:
In the first place, I submit he would have reported to the Master that he saw a ship in distress and signalling for assistance. He made no such report; he stopped and discussed whether they were private night signals, or whether they were signals of distress.
The Commissioner:
He should not have stopped to discuss anything about it; he should have gone to the Master at once.
Mr. Dunlop:
He did not do so, my Lord, because he did not think that they were signals from a vessel herself in distress. That is his view. His view may have been wrong or it may have been right, but he was there.
The Commissioner:
Was he the man who said "I do not suppose that ship is sending up those signals for nothing"?
Mr. Dunlop:
I think there was some discussion of that kind with Gibson, the Apprentice, or Gibson said so. What I wish to point out is that the conduct of the Second Officer at the time is quite inconsistent with the conduct of a man who has seen rockets which he thinks to be signals from a vessel herself in distress.
The Commissioner:
I agree with you there - it is.
Mr. Dunlop:
And therefore one has to look in order to ascertain what it really was they saw, one has to test it by what they did at the time, by their conduct, and their conduct at the time is the best indication in my submission, of what it really was that they saw, what impression was conveyed to their minds by the rocket which they saw, and the movements of the steamer which they saw.
In the second place he would take effective measures to call the Master and get him to come on deck if for no other higher motive than that of shifting the responsibility for inaction from his own shoulders to that of the Master. He was quite content to remain during that watch with the knowledge that the Master was sleeping in the chart room alone, and he made no attempt to bring the Master on to the deck. I say he would certainly have called the Master on deck and communicated with him and taken measures to see that the Master did come on deck if he had for one moment thought there was a vessel in distress and wanting assistance. He would also have called the Marconi operator. It would have been no trouble for him to do so; he would have done that, and not remained content with signalling to her by Morse signals.
The Commissioner:
What was the colour of the rockets that you saw?
Mr. Dunlop:
I do not know, my Lord; they were said to be white rockets, and there was a discussion as to whether they had any colours in them or not.
The Commissioner:
They were white rockets.
Mr. Dunlop:
I think the evidence is they were white rockets.
The Commissioner:
What was the colour of the rockets from the "Titanic"?
Mr. Dunlop:
Oh, white rockets.
The Commissioner:
At all events, the rockets you saw were the same colour.
Mr. Dunlop:
Oh, yes, they were the same colour as, I suppose, most of the rockets that exist in the world are. Most rockets are white rockets.
The Commissioner:
Are there not some green and red?
Mr. Dunlop:
Yes. Some use what are called private night signals which consist of different coloured balls thrown up, red and green and blue. There are coloured rockets in use, but I think I am right in saying the rocket most generally used is the white rocket.
The Commissioner:
Distress rockets may, according to the Rules, be anything?
Mr. Dunlop:
Yes, they may be any colour.
The Commissioner:
They are generally white.
Continued >
