British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 35
Final Arguments
The Commissioner:
I have read all you want to read on the subject: "Mr. Andrews tells me he gives her from an hour to an hour and a half" to live.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, that is the passage I was going to refer to. I do not think it is worth calling your Lordship's attention to what another witness said because I am taking the longest time. You will remember one witness said Mr. Andrews only gave it half-an-hour. That was Hemming.
The Commissioner:
On what page is that?
The Attorney-General:
It is at the bottom of page 421. The actual passage is on 422, at Questions 17738 to 17741.It starts at the bottom of page 421. "Shortly after that, did you" that is Hemming, the lamp trimmer - "see the boatswain? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) What did he say to you? - (A.) He told us to turn out; that the ship had half-an-hour to live, from Mr. Andrews; but not to tell anyone, but to keep it to ourselves. (Q.) I did not hear what you said about Mr. Andrews? - (A.) The boatswain told us to turn out; the ship had only half-an-hour to live, from Mr. Andrews, but not to tell anyone. The boatswain heard it from Mr. Andrews, and he told us. (The Commissioner.) When was this; how long after the jar which you heard? - (A.) About 10 minutes, I should say."
The Commissioner:
That brings it nearer to what you were saying; I said 20 minutes.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, I think 10 minutes is the time, on the evidence. One may say within 10 minutes they knew it.
Then there is Mr. Lowe at page 366, Questions 15791 to 15794. This concludes the evidence of the Officers upon this point, I think: "(Q.) Just tell us what woke you up? - (A.) I was half awakened by hearing voices in our quarters, because it is an unusual thing, and it woke me up. I suppose I lay down there for a little while until I fully realised, and then I jumped out of bed and opened my door a bit, and looked out, and I saw ladies in our quarters with lifebelts on. (Q.) When you first looked out people had got their lifebelts on? - (A.) They had. (Q.) Do you know the time? - (A.) I do not. I have not the remotest idea of the time right throughout. (Q.) Were the boats being attended to?" - this marks the time - "(A.) As soon as I looked out through the door I jumped back and got dressed and went out on deck, and the boats were being cleared."
Now, I have exhausted the Officers' evidence upon it, and at page 442 you find the passage I recalled to your Lordship's recollection in Mr. Ismay's evidence, Question 18513 - Captain Smith was there - "Did you ask him anything further" - he is dealing there with Captain Smith. Perhaps your Lordship will look at 18509. - "(A.) I went back to my room and I put a coat on, and I went up on to the bridge. (Q.) Was Captain Smith there? - (A.) He was. (Q.) Then did you ask him what had happened? - (A.) I did. (Q.) And what did he tell you? - (A.) He told me we had struck ice. (Q.) Did you ask him anything further? - (A.) I asked him whether he thought the damage was serious, and he said he thought it was. (Q.) What did you do then? - (A.) I then went downstairs again - down below. (Q.) Did you meet Mr. Bell, the Chief Engineer? - (A.) I met the Chief Engineer at the top of the staircase. (Q.) Did you have some conversation with him? Will you tell us what it was? - (A.) I asked him whether he thought the ship was seriously damaged and he said he thought she was, but, as far as I remember, he thought the pumps would control the water." Then I read to him the question and the answer which he had given in the American evidence: "'(A.) He said he thought the damage was serious, but that he hoped the pumps would be able to control the water? - (A.) I do not know whether he said 'he hoped' or 'he thought'; it is to the best of my recollection. I cannot remember every word he said.'" That is how it stands.
Now, of course, there is some importance to be attributed to that from two aspects. The one is as to what steps were taken by those on board and the time that it took them to get the boats away with the passengers on board; and the other is because of some criticism which has been directed to the omission of the Captain and Officers to inform the passengers that the danger was so serious. I mean, there are those aspects upon which this evidence is material.
The first thing that I want to say with reference to it is that the uncovering of the boats, clearing the boats for use, and getting them ready to put into the water does seem to have taken a long time. Your Lordship will remember how the evidence stands upon this. There are other considerations to be taken into account in determining whether or not there was too much time occupied in clearing the boats; but one has to remember this, that the order to lower the boats was given within some 20 minutes of the impact, which would bring us to 12 o'clock. In point of fact, no boat was lowered at the earliest till 12.45. That was boat No. 7.
Mr. Laing:
The order to uncover, you mean; you said to lower.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, quite right; my friend is quite right; the order to uncover, and subsequently the order to lower. But the first boat lowered, so far as we are able to gauge from the evidence, is at 12.45; that is boat No. 7. Of course, by that time, as your Lordship observes, more than an hour had elapsed. She struck at 11.40 and the first boat is put into the water at 12.45. No doubt there are those who will assist your Lordship who are more familiar with the time that it ought to take to get a boat ready and to lower into the water in an emergency such as this than I, but it does strike one as a long time.
The Commissioner:
What is the significance of it?
The Attorney-General:
In this case?
The Commissioner:
Yes.
The Attorney-General:
So far as it affects the loss of life in this case, I do not think it is of any significance.
The Commissioner:
It had no effect at all. They managed, before the ship went down, to get all of the boats out.
The Attorney-General:
I am not sure but what I was a little hasty in saying "no effect," because, after all, one has to remember there was a difficulty in getting the last collapsible boat out.
The Commissioner:
Yes, I remember that very well, and perhaps an exception ought to be made in reference to the last collapsible boat; but why should we trouble ourselves about enquiring into that, unless, indeed, I want to enquire into the boat drills these men had gone through.
The Attorney-General:
Of course, that does open up a somewhat wide question which I should be prepared to take your Lordship's view about. Although it is quite true that it may be said, or I will assume it may be said, that the fact that it took a long time did not result in any loss of life - I will assume that for the purpose; and I will assume also that the fact that they had no boat drill did not result in any loss of life - I have got something to say about it - but I say I will assume it, the question is whether your Lordship, notwithstanding that, in view of the facts you have had brought before you, would think it necessary to make some recommendation, for example, with regard to boat drill which would affect both the considerations which I am now putting to you. The suggestion I am going to make is that if that had been the effect of boat drill, it never would have taken so long to uncover the boats or to lower them.
The Commissioner:
Whether it would have taken longer or not to lower them there ought to have been boat drill.
The Attorney-General:
I quite agree, if you arrive at the fact that there ought to be boat drill, which is impressed upon one from the evidence.
The Commissioner:
I do not think at present it would have made the least difference in the time that they took to get the boats down into the water. It does not affect the question of lowering. There ought to be boat drill.
The Attorney-General:
Certainly.
The Commissioner:
There is no doubt about that.
The Attorney-General:
I do not think it is suggested that there is.
The Commissioner:
Luckily in this case it did not matter because, subject to the comment about the loss of the collapsible boats, you could get all the boats into the water.
The Attorney-General:
Yes. I am going to say something to your Lordship about the boat drill before I leave the case, but I pass from it at the moment I only want to call attention to the fact of the time that was taken. I certainly do not want to spend any time upon it if your Lordship has made up your mind that there should be boat drill. That is the only point to which I was going to direct my criticisms upon the time taken. Curiously enough under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1906 there is a provision that there must be an entry in the logbook of the boat drill and a penalty for not entering it; I think it is Section 9, but there is no statutory provision that you must hold a boat drill. That is how the law stands at present upon it. It is Section 9 of the Act of 1906. An entry must be made by the Master in the official logbook of every occasion on which boat drill is practiced on board the ship and on which the life-saving appliances on board the ship have been examined for the purpose of seeing that those appliances are fit and ready for use. The Master shall, if and when required by any Officer of the Board of Trade, produce for inspection any record kept by him for the purposes of this Section. If the Master of a ship fails to comply with any requirement of this Section he shall be liable on summary conviction for each offence to a fine not exceeding £10."
The Commissioner:
What section is that?
The Attorney-General:
Section 9 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1906. What it amounts to is that if there is boat drill, it must be entered in the logbook and if it is not entered in the log a penalty ensues.
The Commissioner:
There is no provision that there must be boat drill.
The Attorney-General:
No, that is a point to which I shall direct attention by and by. Parliament at any rate has only provided a penalty for not entering it in the log, but we do know this with regard to boat muster for boat drill: The Emigration Officer called Clarke in this case at Southampton did make, and is in the habit of making, a requirement that boats shall be put into the water - that is, for the purpose of giving his certificate. My Lord, obviously, I should say, that that is not sufficient, because all that that amounts to is picking out two boats which are manned by seamen and put into the water just for the purpose of seeing, as I should imagine, that the davits and tackle are in order and that the boat can be lowered -
The Commissioner:
And that the boats were sound.
The Attorney-General:
Yes; that is all it comes to; but, really, it is not of very great practical value, because you would never get your boats manned as they were on these two occasions and lowered full of seamen. What you have to remember is that when the boats have to be lowered at sea there are the proper number of firemen and trimmers and stewards to man them when they are lowered.
The Commissioner:
Are you going to suggest that it should have been incumbent on the Officers of this ship to have taken part in the boat drill, because, if you did, you would produce a state of things that would be almost impossible.
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
All you want is eight or nine of the men.
The Attorney-General:
I do not think there is any great difficulty in it. There is a boat muster which, in the ordinary course, would have been held on board this ship; it would have been held on the Sunday, apparently; it was never held before the vessel started. It is not a boat drill, but it has some of the elements of a boat drill, and that is what took place, apparently.
The Commissioner:
It enables the men to be mustered ready for action in an emergency, but they get no practice in the lowering of the boats.
The Attorney-General:
I agree, but it gets them there, and it tells each man what his place is in the boat; that is the object of it. Each man would know his boat, and know where he is to go in the boat, and there it ends, and after all, the ship is travelling at the time, and there is no question of lowering the boats into the water and practicing; they cannot do that, but it has just that element in it which is of itself of some importance.
The Commissioner:
Must every man of the thousand who constitute the crew take part in lowering the boats, or is it confined to the deckhands?
The Attorney-General:
Yes, the seamen.
The Commissioner:
I am told that at a boat muster the boats are swung out.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, swung out, but not lowered.
The Commissioner:
I do not think it is suggested that when they get out into the ocean the boats are lowered.
The Attorney-General:
No, because the vessel is travelling at 22 knots at the time, but they are swung out, certainly; I think we have heard something about that.
Mr. Cotter:
My experience of 18 years is that the men get a boat badge, and the number of the boat is on the badge; for instance, No. 2 lifeboat would be on the badge, and the man would have to go to No. 2. A bugle goes, and they know by the bugle, and they go to their boat stations, and the order goes, "All hands to the deck." The men stand by the boats, and the Officer in charge of the boat has a small book, with the list of names of that boat in that book, and he calls out the names of the men, and each man has to reply what he is, whether he is a fireman, steward, or cook; every man has to answer to his name. The Officer who is in charge of the drill gives the order so many men in the boats; there are eight men told off for a boat; each seat in the boat is numbered. No. 1 is a sailor, No. 2 is a fireman, No. 3 is a steward, No. 4 is a fireman, No. 5 is a sailor, No. 6 is a steward, and No. 7 and No. 8 is a sailor and fireman. That makes three stewards, three firemen and two sailors in a boat. The sailors' duty is chiefly to look after the falls and tackles; then order for swinging out the boats comes, and the whole of the men, the spare men, stand by, and launch the boats out. They may lower some right down to the water's edge.
The Commissioner:
Do you mean out at sea?
Mr. Cotter:
No; this is only done in port, and that is how the men get knowledge of how to handle the boats. This is done regularly in the Cunard Line, both in New York and in Liverpool.
The Commissioner:
Do all the stewards take part in that?
Mr. Cotter:
Every steward, every fireman and every sailor.
The Commissioner:
Then 900 men take part in it.
Mr. Cotter:
Yes, 900 men.
The Commissioner:
Do the 900 men take part in this work in the boats?
Mr. Cotter:
Not in the boats, but in the handling of the boat drill.
The Commissioner:
Nine hundred men take part in the handling.
Mr. Cotter:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
All the stewards?
Mr. Cotter:
Yes, the stewards, the sailors and the firemen.
The Commissioner:
Supposing the firemen will not come on board till just within a few minutes of the boat being launched, what happens then?
Mr. Cotter:
It is a bad system to have in any case in any company. That has happened in the case of the White Star Line, but in the Cunard Line it does not happen.
The Commissioner:
I am not sure about that.
Mr. Cotter:
I am positive.
The Commissioner:
I doubt whether there is any big difference between the Cunard Line and the White Star Line.
Mr. Cotter:
There is a big difference, my Lord; I have sailed in both.
The Commissioner:
Now, Mr. Attorney, will you proceed.
The Attorney-General:
My Lord, we have gone off the track a little. I was only going to say that I should hesitate a little to say that it is only the seamen who ought to take part in the boat drill. I should certainly hesitate to say that it is only seamen who ought to take part in the boat drill, but after all those are the men who least require the drill.
The Commissioner:
Is it not the usual thing for those men to go through a course of boat drill?
The Attorney-General:
No
The Commissioner:
Does the Captain of the vessel ever go through boat drill?
The Attorney-General:
I should imagine not, I do not suppose that he requires it.
The Commissioner:
Does the head steward go through it?
The Attorney-General:
I do not see why not, my Lord; I do not see why his degree of head steward should prevent him.
The Commissioner:
But does he?
The Attorney-General:
That I cannot say.
Mr. Cotter:
Yes, he does, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
I am told he does.
The Attorney-General:
Well, that satisfactorily answers the question.
The Commissioner:
I will tell you what I am advised about this, and that is, that in long voyages to the East, where you are at sea for several weeks, it can be done, but you cannot get through the whole of the crew, through the stewards and firemen and A.B.'s. you cannot get through them all; but when you are out on an Atlantic voyage which lasts only five days, is it practically impossible, and that you would have to do nothing else but working at the boats You could scarcely do it in five days, and you would have the people doing other work besides working at the boats.
The Attorney-General:
I suppose what it means is that you would have to do it the day before if you do it at all?
The Commissioner:
Then you would want more Officers and men?
The Attorney-General:
That is the difficulty that has been pointed out to me.
The Commissioner:
It is quite obvious it is desirable that there should be some sort of drill, and in this case, as far as I can make out, it is admitted there was none.
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
There was this inspection of the two boats.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, there was the inspection of the two boats in Southampton. Well, my Lord, that really was the object of the criticism that I was going to direct to the time taken up.
The Commissioner:
Are you going to say anything to me as to the value of the boats?
The Attorney-General:
Yes, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
They were very valuable on this occasion?
The Attorney-General:
Yes, I am going to say that, but, of course, that comes to the other question which is involved, about the boat accommodation.
The Commissioner:
But my own impression at present is that the collision happened in such a way that boats were not wanted.
The Attorney-General:
I agree; and when I deal with that part of the case I shall say that has been the policy, not only of the Board of Trade, but of the Advisory Committee which has been sitting under the Merchant Shipping Act and giving expert advice to the Board of Trade, but I will come to that in the proper order when I come to deal with the boat accommodation required by the Board of Trade.
Now, my Lord, the point that I was upon just now about the clearing of the boats from the ship, and the time that was taken, proves this, that altogether (I do not think you can be precise.) from about a quarter to one to half-past two o'clock was occupied in lowering the boats. There is this submission to be made in connection with that, that according, certainly, to Mr. Lowe's evidence, and some other evidence, the time taken was not because of any difficulty in handling the boats, but because they could not get the passengers to get into them, and no doubt that is a perfectly just observation which one muse bear in mind that they seem to have had very great difficulty in getting the passengers to the boats, or, when there, to get them into the boats, but I shall not comment further upon that in view of what your Lordship has said, that you think there ought to be boat drill, as to my mind that is the only value of the evidence in this case, and I therefore will say nothing more about that part of it.
Now, my Lord, the second consideration, having regard to the seriousness of the casualty as realised between 10 minutes or at a very early period from this happening to which I have referred, was that it is said, if the passengers had been told of the extreme danger and that the vessel could not float for more than an hour and a half, or if they had known what Mr. Andrews had said as his opinion, or what the Captain had said as his opinion to Mr. Ismay, or the Chief Engineer, Mr. Bell, equally to Mr. Ismay, if they had known that, that they would have got into the boats, there would have been no difficulty. Of course, what would have happened no doubt would have been that they would have got into the boats; but I think, as your Lordship indicated, there would have been the gravest possible danger of panic at that time, and of a struggle to get into the boats, instead of the very orderly organisation and maneuvering that took place by the stewards getting in front, and asking the passengers and the women and children to get into the boats, carrying out the order of the Captain that women and children should be in the boats first; all that discipline which existed, one cannot help thinking, would have been prevented if they had been told that there was a serious danger, and I also should suggest that no passenger who knows that his vessel - I believe no passenger, however ignorant of the perils of the sea, who knows that his vessel has been in contact with an iceberg, and that an order is given that the boats to be uncovered and lowered, and women and children are to be allowed to get in first, would have failed to realise that there was at least a grave state of things on board that vessel. I only make those observations because of the criticisms which they have been made already upon this - I think in particular by Mr. Harbinson, who said they ought to have been told. My Lord, in this connection, as I am dealing with this, I would like to remind your Lordship of how the matter stands with regard to the third class passengers. It was said, certainly at the outset of this case, that the accessibility of the third class passengers to the boats was extremely difficult, that they could not get to the boats, and a suggestion was made that the greater percentage of the third class passengers drowned was due to the fact that they had not been able to get there and, indeed, at one time it was suggested, if not here, certainly it has been suggested by some statements which appeared in the Press, that they were prevented from getting to the boats - forcibly prevented. Well, my Lord, fortunately, very fortunately I think, all that suggestion is absolutely disposed of by the evidence that has been given. I am not going to refer to it now; I have collected it, and intended to call attention to it, because I did think it was a matter of very great importance; and the suggestion which was underlying many of the questions that were put, certainly by my friend Mr. Harbinson, was that the third class passengers had been worse treated in this matter than the first and second class passengers, particularly the first, and that that accounted for the greater loss of life among the third class passengers. My Lord, of course when one reflected upon the condition of things that that seemed to indicate, I think it was very distressing to think that that really was the fact. My Lord, we know from what Mr. Harbinson has said himself as the result of this evidence, and after the very zealous vigilance with which he has conducted his case on behalf of the third class passengers, whom he represented, he comes to the conclusion which I would just like to repeat to your Lordship, as disposing of a great mass of the evidence which has been given and as my excuse for not referring to it more in detail. He says, at page 781: "I wish to say distinctly that no evidence has been given in the course of this case that would substantiate a charge that any attempt was made to keep back the third class passengers. There is not an atom or a tittle of evidence upon which any such allegation could be based, and I do not for one moment say the third class passengers were deliberately kept back or were kept back at all in the sense that any effort was made to prevent them reaching the boat deck.
The Commissioner:
What page is that?
The Attorney-General:
781. "I desire further, my Lord, to say that there is no evidence that when they did reach the boat deck there was any discrimination practiced either by the Officers or the sailors in putting them into the boats. It would be wrong of me to say so, because there is no evidence which would bear me out in saying so, and I think it only fair, in speaking on behalf of the third class passengers, I should make that observation to your Lordship." Now, my Lord, in view of that statement by my learned friend, a statement which he very fairly, and, if I may say so, very properly made, having regard to the suggestions that certainly have been made public with regard to the third class passengers. I do not intend to go in any detail into the evidence. Your Lordship will remember that we went with great care in this case into the plans, and also, with Mr. Wilding's assistance, along the decks, in order to see whether or not the third class passengers had access to the decks, and we have had much discussion about the barricades, or the barriers, that existed on the vessel; at one time it looked as if it was possible that it might be suggested that it was those that prevented the third class passengers from getting on the deck. So far as the evidence goes it is quite plain that nothing of that kind took place. You have still to remember that there was a larger percentage of third class passengers drowned than of second or first class. My Lord, one reason that occurs to me, and that, I suggest, is worthy of consideration, is that these third class passengers were emigrants. They would probably almost, and they would certainly be carrying all they possessed with them. To leave the cabin or to leave the vessel with all their little property on board and to go into the boat would be a thing that they would naturally be loth to do, more loth probably than a person whose property was not all on the vessel, and who might be inclined to leave such little baggage as he had without any very serious consideration. When you bear in mind here that you have emigrants, and that you are dealing with emigrants, and that they were asked to leave and to get into the boat at a distance, no doubt, of some 65 feet, and to be lowered in these boats into the water, probably many of them never having been on a vessel before, and certainly not of a vessel of this character, I think one can readily understand why it is that the third class passengers refused to leave the ship, and remained on the ship in a larger number proportionately than either first or second class passengers. There is one other reason, not an unimportant one, which is of course that their quarters, according to the construction of the ship, were in a less favourable position undoubtedly for reaching the boats than either the first or second class passengers. That, I think, is quite clear from what we saw.
The Commissioner:
Their quarters are at the extreme ends.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, both forward and aft, and that must be borne in mind. Still, according to the evidence, stewards were told off and were sent to fetch them, and according to what you have before you they failed to get them to come on deck for the most part, or to attempt to get into the boats. Your Lordship may remember one particular piece of evidence, I think it was as to boat No. 15, the last boat on the starboard side, of which it was said that stewards were sent to get passengers, and sent down to see whether there were no women and children to come up from the third class to get into this last boat that was leaving on the starboard side, and then came back and apparently they found no one. I am bound to say that the evidence that was given with regard to that was not very satisfactory, and your Lordship will remember with regard to this last boat that as she was being lowered and as the passengers were getting into her it was then found that she could take more, and stewards were sent down to see whether they could find any third class passengers to come up on deck and get into the boat, and the answer was that they found none. I have always found that a little difficult to understand, because there were a very large number of third class passengers still on that vessel, and one does not realise why it was that no one came up on deck.
Continued >
