British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 36
Final Arguments, cont.
The Commissioner:
In five or six?
The Attorney-General:
Yes, I say six assuming she was penetrated in No. 4. I was leaving it out because, as I have said, I do not think the evidence quite establishes it, and therefore I do not want to put it too high. But assuming you have the vessel grievously wounded as this one was, penetrated through five compartments, then, of course, the difficulties are immensely multiplied, and I do not suppose anybody ever contemplated that would happen; and it never could have happened if it had not been for the fact that this vessel was going at 22 knots, which is such an important factor in it, and that she came across this submerged part of a berg which seems to have somehow had a number of projections which caused this damage.
Mr. Laing:
It was six or seven compartments.
The Attorney-General:
I know, if you take Nos. 1, 2 and 3 holds; but you cannot call them compartments quite. If you take it as it is in the forepeak and in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd holds and also in No. 6, which is the foremost boiler section, and No. 5 boiler section, there is no doubt of the holing. If you treat those as separate compartments, it would make six, without taking into account No. 4. With No. 4 it would make seven. But your Lordship knows how that stands. The importance of it in my mind, according to the submission I am making to you, is that this particular damage that was done to this vessel, as we know it, was of a kind which nobody had ever contemplated as possible. That, I submit, is the true explanation.
The Commissioner:
Can you tell me this; has an unsinkable ship ever been constructed?
The Attorney-General:
Not that we know. I do not know of any. These vessels which have been referred to, and vessels of that kind, like the "Mauretania" and "Lusitania," were thought to be unsinkable in a comparative sense. You cannot put it any higher than that. It does not mean that it was impossible to sink them. What it did mean was that so far as one knew they never would be sunk because they were so constructed that they would float under conditions which it was thought comprised every possible danger that might happen to them. That, I think, was the view held right up to the disaster to the "Titanic."
The Commissioner:
There are a great many gentlemen who imagine that they can construct ships which would be unsinkable, and I have received endless notices of valuable patents for that purpose.
The Attorney-General:
I know. One gentleman is very anxious that I should interest myself in a scheme under some patent of his which would save every person within five minutes of a disaster happening of whatever form or kind, and he is quite ready to expound it.
The Commissioner:
And give him a fortune?
The Attorney-General:
Oh, yes, my Lord, which he is anxious to share with me, provided that I supply the capital.
Now, my Lord, I think that exhausts what I want to say to your Lordship about the boat accommodation and the criticism that has been directed to that. All I am anxious is that your Lordship should have present to your Lordship's mind, as you have, all the considerations which may be urged pro and con when dealing with the criticisms and comments which have been made in reference to the Board of Trade.
Now I propose to deal with the last question, and that is, as to the "Californian." I want to preface any observations I am going to make -
The Commissioner:
You must tell me what my position is with regard to the "Californian."
The Attorney-General:
Yes, my Lord. First of all the view which I take of it is that so far from being desirous of bringing home to the Captain of the "Californian," or to any of the Officers of the "Californian," that they saw distress signals and that they took no step after they had seen them, I am most anxious, and have been throughout, to find some possible excuse, for the inaction on the part of the "Californian." It is not a case of desiring to bring home to them that they did not do their duty; our anxiety and your Lordship's anxiety would be, if possible, to find some reason to explain the failure by them to take any steps when they had seen distress signals. I can only say that to me it is a matter of extreme regret that I have come to the conclusion that the submission I must make to you, is that there is no excuse. Whether I am right or wrong in that is, of course, for your Lordship's consideration.
Now the position of matters in this Enquiry is this. Attention was called at an early stage of the Enquiry to the fact that the "Californian" had seen the distress signals and had taken no steps in consequence, and further the allegation was undoubtedly made that the ship that she saw was the "Titanic." Upon that my friend, Mr. Dunlop, appeared when Captain Lord of the "Californian" was called. One must bear in mind also that this was not a new suggestion; that it was made first in America; and that it was enquired into in America. I am not, of course, going to refer to the details of what took place there. The only reason I am calling attention to it is that they knew perfectly well what the complaint was with regard to the "Californian." And no doubt that is the reason why my friend was instructed to appear, and did appear, as he stated at first, both for the owners and the Master of the vessel. I pointed out at once that in the view which I took of this matter the owners were not affected at all. No one suggested that the owners were responsible for this. This was a matter which affected the Master and, it might be, the Officers of the vessel. I notice it is on page 156 that Mr. Dunlop first appeared in the matter, when he asked for leave to appear, when he said he was appearing for the owners. He said: "Will your Lordship allow me to appear on behalf of the Leyland Line - the owners, Master and Officers from the 'Californian,' who are to be examined today?" That was my friends application before they were examined. So that he knew quite well what the point was of calling them. Then I stated what the questions were that would be discussed.
Then later on your Lordship says to Mr. Dunlop: "In the meantime, what you can do is to watch, and, if you find any attack is made upon your clients, then you can ask me to allow them to go into the box," I said, "It cannot affect the owners, I think; it may affect the Master if the story were true." Your Lordship will remember the position we were in at that moment. All that we knew about it was that the donkeyman Gill had made a statement on affidavit, and that that had been reported in the public press, and that the Master of the vessel had been examined in America, of which we also had some report in the newspapers. But that is how it stood. Whether the story was true or not we did not know. Then I said: "It cannot affect the owners, I think; it may affect the Master if the story were true." Then your Lordship says: "I understand this gentleman was applying on behalf of the owners and the Master," and my friend, Mr. Dunlop, says: "Yes." Then I say: "I do not see how it can affect the owners." There the matter rested. Then Captain Lord is examined and my friend Mr. Dunlop examined him, and some question was raised about it at page 170 only because I pointed out that he was leading Captain Lord. I thought, and I am going to say when I examine his evidence, that he was an unsatisfactory Witness, and Mr. Dunlop was putting leading questions to him on the most vital points in the case. If you look at the top of page 170, I say: "I quite understand that he is here for the protection of the Master, and I am raising no objection to that, but in all the circumstances I think it would be better to let him tell a little of the story." That was the discussion. Then your Lordship says you did not think any harm had been done at that time, and later on your Lordship pointed out at Question 7384: "You are falling into the error that the Attorney-General warned you not to fall into. You are putting the words into the man's mouth. You might as well hand your proof to him and tell him to read it out." That makes it quite plain that my friend appeared, and appeared from the first moment, for the Master.
May I just call your Lordship's attention to the Rules. My submission with regard to it is that by appearing he becomes a party. I am not asking your Lordship in any way to deal with this matter, except to state the conclusion of fact to which you arrive.
The Commissioner:
Have I any jurisdiction to do more?
The Attorney-General:
I think not. If your Lordship will remember, you put this question to me at an early stage of the "Californian" Enquiry, and the view I took then was the view I take now, and that I submit to you that all we are asking your Lordship to deal with is the conflict of fact that arises upon the evidence, and nothing more. I am dealing only with the evidence of the "Californian" for this purpose. There is a conflict between the various Witnesses called from the "Californian." The facts alleged on the one hand are these, that the "Californian" saw distress signals. As to that there is no conflict. To be quite accurate with regard to it I think one might say that the Captain does not admit that they were distress signals, but he admits that they might have been. That is the exact position. I will show that by reference to one question. Further, that those distress signals came from a vessel in the direction in which the "Titanic" was. That there is no dispute about. The further point is that, having seen the distress signals, the "Californian" took no steps, except to attempt to do Morse signaling with a light. I think that is the position. The comment I make upon it is that for the Master of a British vessel to see distress signals, whether they came from a passenger steamer or not, and whether from a passenger steamer of the size of the "Titanic" or not, is a very serious matter, and because it is a serious matter we have enquired into it very carefully during the course of this investigation; but, having regard to the Enquiry, I think all that your Lordship is asked to do, certainly all that I am asking you to do, is to give the view of the facts which you have formed after hearing all the evidence. I mean by that that suppose your Lordship came to the conclusion that we were right in saying that she did see distress signals and that they were the signals of a passenger steamer of the "Titanic,' and took no steps, that is a finding of fact which I should ask your Lordship to give in the Report which you may make. I do not ask you to do anything more. In point of fact Captain Lord is not summoned before you to answer some attack upon his certificate. That is not the position of matters. What has happened here is that in the course of the Enquiry facts which are relevant to this Enquiry have been brought before your Lordship, that there is a conflict of evidence as to these facts, that on one view of the facts they have a bearing undoubtedly upon the conduct of one or more persons upon the "Californian," but they also are relevant to the Enquiry, and if they are relevant to the Enquiry the fact that your Lordship may in arriving at your conclusion find a state of things to have existed which reflects upon some person who is not actually on trial and cited to appear before you as on trial, is no reason, I submit, why your Lordship should not express your opinion on the facts.
The Commissioner:
Finding the facts and expressing an opinion upon them are two different things.
The Attorney-General:
I agree; that is why I said expressing your opinion upon the facts and ask you to say on the somewhat conflicting evidence which is the correct one.
The Commissioner:
Let me put it quite plainly: If Captain Lord saw these distress signals and neglected a reasonable opportunity, which he had of going to the relief of the vessel in distress, it may very well be that he is guilty of a misdemeanor. That is so, is it not?
The Attorney-General:
Yes, under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906.
The Commissioner:
Am I to try that question.
The Attorney-General:
Certainly not.
The Commissioner:
I think not.
The Attorney-General:
Certainly not, my Lord. I never asked and could not ask your Lordship to try that question, but, nevertheless, the facts, which you are asked to find, whether they reflect upon him or not, are material to the Enquiry.
The Commissioner:
The facts I can find, but I do not want, unless I am obliged to do it, to find a man guilty of a crime.
The Attorney-General:
No, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
I do not think I have tried him for any such purpose.
The Attorney-General:
I agree.
The Commissioner:
And, moreover, as you know perfectly well, he might, if he had had any idea that he was going to be tried for a crime, have said when he was in the Witness-box: "I refuse to answer these questions because they may incriminate me."
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
But he did not do that, you know.
The Attorney-General:
Different considerations apply, I think, when you are determining whether a crime has been committed, and your Lordship would have to go into questions which certainly, it appears to me, it is unnecessary to find in this case, and which I am not asking you to find in order to determine whether a crime was committed. I will give an indication of what I mean. Supposing he came to a mistaken conclusion with regard to what he saw, clearly there is no crime. Supposing he was careless in coming to that conclusion, there is no crime; but, nevertheless, if you were sitting on another tribunal dealing with the matter from other points of view, you might say, "Well, he ought to have come to the conclusion that these were distress signals from a passenger steamer, and he ought to have gone to the rescue of that vessel." Suppose he, the Captain of the "Californian," thought that these rockets were distress signals, and that they came from a vessel in distress, apart altogether from whether she was a passenger steamer or not, then you have to consider whether he has any excuse for not going to the assistance of this vessel. Of course there are a number of considerations which you would have to take into account then: Whether he thought he could safely reach her; whether he thought he was running a risk; whether, owing to the fact that he was among ice, and, apparently, according to his evidence, for the first time, that may have formed some explanation of why he did not at once proceed to the assistance of this vessel. All those are questions which no doubt would be very relevant indeed when you are considering whether or a not a misdemeanor has been committed. I am not going to ask you to find that at all. What I am asking you to find is the fact that they did see on the "Californian" distress signals and that were distress signals from the "Titanic," and that the distance of the "Titanic" from the "Californian" was only a few miles.
The Commissioner:
How many?
The Attorney-General:
I should put it at something like seven or eight. It is very difficult to say. I do not profess to be able to say with precision.
The Commissioner:
That is a very difficult question on the evidence.
The Attorney-General:
I agree it is very difficult to say. I think it was put by him in America and also here at 19 1/2 miles; and then by a later explanation he says he had to steam just on 30 miles to get there.
The Commissioner:
Because he could not go the direct way.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, that is as far as I ask the Court to go. It is as far as it is necessary to go for the questions I am putting to you. For one thing, I should be very sorry to do an injustice to Captain Lord, and I am very anxious that in any event nothing should be said as a conclusion by your Lordship which would suggest that he had committed a misdemeanor. Of course, as your Lordship says, no such question is put to you and no such question is made by me. But still we must get to some conclusion upon this state of the evidence.
The Commissioner:
You formulated a question for me to answer?
The Attorney-General:
Yes, purposely.
The Commissioner:
And I must answer it somehow; at least, I think I must.
The Attorney-General:
It is the question in Question 24: How it was that assistance did not reach the "Titanic" before the "Carpathia" arrived? The "Californian" is the vessel.
The Commissioner:
It is the only vessel as is pointed out.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, I framed the question purposely so as to get an answer upon this evidence.
The Commissioner:
I think you have explained to me sufficiently how you think I ought to deal with this.
The Attorney-General:
If your Lordship pleases.
The Commissioner:
Unless you wish to say anything more; I am not stopping you on the evidence you know.
The Attorney-General:
No. I am very anxious not to press it too far. At the same time I am very anxious that after the evidence we have had, such conclusions as are relevant to this Enquiry should be given by your Lordship when you have considered the evidence.
Now, the evidence, which in voluminous, is undoubtedly to some extent very conflicting on some points. I am not sure that it is possible to reconcile some of these statements that are made, from whatever aspect you look at them. But upon the material points, I submit there is not any real difficulty. The material points are first of all whether the "Californian" saw distress signals. One answer of the Captain it seems to me quite disposes of that.
The Commissioner:
Captain Lord?
The Attorney-General:
Yes, my Lord.
The Commissioner:
I do not know whether it will relieve you at all in the trouble you are taking, but I think we are all of opinion that the distress rockets that were seen from the "Californian" were the distress signals of the "Titanic."
The Attorney-General:
That relieves me of a great deal of evidence, my Lord. That is the material fact of this case. Your Lordship will remember the evidence that was given by Gibson, the Apprentice, with reference to his going to the chart room and the Captain's explanation of that. My submission, in considering this evidence, is that one must come to the conclusion that Captain Lord's evidence, as given in this Court, was unsatisfactory upon this very vital point of what happened after he had once seen that there was a vessel there. He was himself stopped in the ice because of the danger of proceeding, so that he had well present to his mind the possibility of another vessel being in jeopardy, in all likelihood, by proceeding through the ice; yet he not only goes to his chart room, but remains in the chart room after he has had notice that at least one distress signal had been sent up. His view about that at first - I doubt whether it is persisted in throughout his evidence or whether he intended to make an impression that he persisted in it - was that he expected the boy to come down, because he had told Mr. Groves, who was the Third Officer, to send the boy down to him as soon as there was any change or as soon as there was anything to report. And the boy does come to the chart room. The Captain's explanation of it is rather difficult to get by piecing question and answer together because it travels over so much ground, but the explanation of it, giving it quite fairly to him, is that he remembered the door opening and the boy opening it. He said, "What is that?" and the boy closed the door and went away without saying anything further. That was his explanation of it. On the other hand, the boy's statement is very definite and very specific as to what had happened. But, my Lord, before the boy goes to the chart room, according to the evidence at a quarter-past one (but I shall submit it must have been somewhere about a quarter to one.) notice is given to him by the Officer on deck, through a speaking tube which existed, into the chart room that a white rocket had been seen. That is Question 6790, page 158. This is the Captain's admission. 6790 is the crucial question upon this point, but he is asked just a little before that, at Question 6785, "Did you speak to him through the speaking tube? - (A.) At 20 minutes to one." Your Lordship will remember he had said he remained on deck till a quarter-past 12, when he went into the chart room. Question 6786 is, "Did he say whether she had changed her position? - (A.) I asked him if the steamer was the same. He said it was the same; he had called her up once, but she would not reply to him." So that he is trying to get into communication with her and had failed. "(Q.) Then you went to lie down in the chart room? - (A.) Yes; I told him I was going to lie down in the chart room then. (Q.) A little later did he whistle down the tube and tell you she was altering her bearings? - (A.) A quarter-past one. (Q.) Did he say how she was altering her bearings? - (A.) Towards the S. W. (Q.) Did he tell you whether he had seen any signal? - (A.) He said he saw a white rocket. (Q.) From her? - (A.) From her." An attempt has been made - it is not really more - to explain that he did not understand what that white rocket meant, but my submission is that it completely breaks down. The suggestion at first was that it was a Company's signal. He admitted quite plainly that he knew it was not a Company's signal, or, at any rate, received no satisfactory explanation that it was a Company's signal.
Will your Lordship look at page 161, Question 6898; "(A.) I heard of one rocket. I did not see it fired. (Q.) You heard of one? - (A.) Yes.(Q.) That was before you went to the chart room? - (A.) No, at a quarter-past one." Then, at Question 6902: "(Q.) Did you remain in the chart room when you were told that a vessel was firing a rocket? - (A.) I remained in the chart room when he told me this vessel had fired a rocket. (Q.) I do not understand you. You knew, of course, that there was danger in this field of ice to steamers? - (A.) To a steamer steaming, yes. (Q.) You knew there was danger? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) That is why you stopped? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) And you knew also that it was desirable, at any rate, to communicate with the 'Titanic' to tell her that there was ice? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) You had done that? - (A.) I had done that. (Q.) And you knew that this vessel, whatever it was, that you saw, had stopped? - (A.) Had stopped, yes. (Q.) I do not understand - it may be my fault? - (A.) Shall I explain to you? (Q.) What did you think this vessel was firing rockets for? - (A.) I asked the Second Officer. I said, 'Is that a Company's signal?' and he said he did not know. (Q.) Then that did not satisfy you? - (A.) No, it did not. (Q.) I mean whatever it was it did not satisfy you that it was a Company's signal? - (A.) It did not, but I had no reason to think it was anything else."
The Commissioner:
That is a curious condition of mind.
The Attorney-General:
Very. And if your Lordship looks at the question just opposite to that, after a series of questions we get eventually to Question 6943. "(Q.) Very well, that did not satisfy you? - (A.) It did not satisfy me. (Q.) Then if it was not that, it might have been a distress signal? - (A.) It might have been. (Q.) And you remained in the chart room? - (A.) I remained in the chart room."
Now, my Lord, that establishes quite clearly this, that he thought it might have been, and the moment a man thinks it might have been a distress signal and does not know what else it could be, I should have thought it really means that he knew - I will not say he was quite certain - but he knew at any rate this, that there was a serious possibility of some vessel being in urgent need of assistance close by. It is very difficult to understand. I find it very difficult to understand in reading through all this evidence why it was that in those circumstances he remained in the chart room and took no step. Your Lordship will see what he does. He says he remained there expecting Gibson, the Apprentice, to come down and report. I want to make this comment upon that evidence. It is very unfortunate, to say the least of it, that there is no entry made in the log of these distress signals. The shifting of time, according to the evidence that is given, has some bearing upon it. It is said, for example, in this case that this white rocket, the first distress signal, was not seen till a quarter-past one. It is very difficult to explain that, in view of the evidence of the "Titanic," which is that they were sending up these rockets from 12.45. I should have thought upon this evidence and upon the evidence which follows it, that the estimate of time must be quite wrong.
The Commissioner:
There might be some difference in the clocks of the two vessels.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, certainly, there might be.
The Commissioner:
That might partly account for it.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, it might; but having regard to the news they got in the early morning of the loss of the "Titanic," I cannot help thinking it is very striking that you find no entry of any sort or description of the distress signals which had undoubtedly been seen during that night, and to the number of eight. According to the Apprentice Gibson it is about 2 o'clock that he goes down into the chart room. That is the time which he gives. That is at Question 7277. The Master speaks of it, and says he came down at about 2 o'clock, and he gave that extraordinary account of what had happened. Your Lordship will remember the boy's account was a very different one. The boy's account was a very important one.
It is put, I think, at page 168 in further examination by me of the Captain, Question 7280: "Did not the boy deliver the message to you, and did not you enquire whether they were all white rockets? - (A.) I do not know; I was asleep." The first reference to the boy in that is at Question 7278: "(7281.) (Q.) I think this is a very important matter. - (A.) It is a very important matter. I recognise that. (Q.) It is much better to tell us what happened, Captain. - (A.) He came to the door, I understand. I have spoken to him very closely since. He said: I opened my eyes and said, 'What is it?' and he gave the message; and I said, 'What time is it?' and he told me; and then I think he said I asked him whether there were any colours in the light. (Q.) That is what the boy has said to you. You have questioned him a good many times since? - (A.) Yes, I have questioned him since. (Q.) Is he still an Apprentice on your ship? - (A.) He is. (The Commissioner.) Is he telling the truth? - (A.) Is the boy telling the truth? (Q.) Yes? - (A.) I do not know. I do not doubt it for a moment. (The Attorney-General.) Just think. You say you do not doubt it for a moment. Do you see what that means. That means that the boy did go to the chart room to you. He did tell you about the rockets from the ship, and you asked whether they were white rockets, and told him that he was to report if anything further occurred? - (A.) So he said. That is what he said. (Q.) Have you any reason to doubt that is true? - (A.) No; I was asleep."
Then if you turn to what the boy says about this it is at page 173, Question 7552: "(Q.) What were the orders which the Second Officer gave you when she disappeared? - (A.) Call the Captain and tell him that that ship has disappeared in the South-West, that we are heading West-South-West and that she has fired altogether eight rockets. (Q.) Did you report that to the Captain? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Where did you go to? - (A.) Into the chart room. (Q.) Was the chart room door shut? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Did you open the door and go in? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Did you find the Captain there? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Did you speak to him? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Did you give him the report you were ordered to give him? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) What did the Captain say? - (A.) He asked me were they all white. (Q.) The rockets? - (A.) Yes, were there any colours in the rockets at all? (Q.) What did you tell him? - (A.) I told him that they were all white. (Q.) Did he give any instructions? - (A.) No. (Q.) Did he say anything further? - (A.) He asked me the time. (Q.) What was the time? - (A.) Five minutes past two by the wheelhouse clock. (Q.) You told him that, did you? - (A.) Yes." Then he said the Captain was awake, and then he explains that he had up to that time seen five more rockets. Having done that he goes back and reports to the Officer. He says at Question 7572 that he had reported what he was told to do.
Continued >
