British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 36
Final Arguments, cont.
The Commissioner:
I do not understand this boy's evidence - that he saw three rockets at twenty minutes to four.
The Attorney-General:
It may be one of two things. It might be that they were some of the signals which were sent up from the boats, but if they were rockets it may be they were the "Carpathia's."
The Commissioner:
She sent up rockets?
The Attorney-General:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
That is quite possible.
The Attorney-General:
Of course, he does not see those until about twenty to four.
The Commissioner:
"I cannot say at twenty minutes to four, but it was about that time." However, you can pass it by; it does not affect my mind.
The Attorney-General:
Again, it is a little difficult to tell what time exactly that boy saw those rockets. He saw some after the eight rockets which had been sent up by the "Titanic." The difficulty is to reconcile that evidence with the Captain's.
The Commissioner:
I asked the boy, was the Captain awake, and he said, "Yes."
The Attorney-General:
Yes, certainly, your Lordship did.
The Commissioner:
The Captain's excuse for not hearing or understanding what the boy said to him is that he was asleep.
The Attorney-General:
Yes. Well, my Lord, I must say that with the greatest desire to accept that evidence, if possible, I find it impossible. He cannot have been asleep in view of what he was expecting. He had had the report; he was waiting to know whether they had managed to call up this vessel or not. He had had the report according to his own view half-an-hour before, that they had not yet managed to get into communication this vessel; they were trying to; and he says, "Let me know later." Then he is in his chart room waiting for this boy, the boy comes down and all this takes place; and it is very difficult to imagine that the Captain has forgotten all about this incident, or that it did not take place. I will not say more about it than that, but I do submit that the true view of the evidence is that what the boy Gibson is stating is correct; and if you take that view it means this -
The Commissioner:
He struck me as a perfectly honest Witness, and the Captain himself, when he is asked if he thinks the boy is speaking the truth, says he does.
The Attorney-General:
Yes, and may I add one further factor for your Lordship's consideration. That boy when he was called was certainly very reluctant to say anything which he thought would tell against his Captain.
The Commissioner:
Certainly.
The Attorney-General:
I mean he was not anxious to make a case against him - quite the reverse, and I think the same observations would apply to Mr. Groves, the Third Officer, who also gives very pertinent evidence. But when you have got as far as that, I submit it is really as far as one need go in this case. The important fact is this, having regard to what your Lordship has said you are satisfied about; it means this, that that establishes that the signals were sent, that they were seen by the "Californian," that they came from the "Titanic," that the Captain knew that these signals had been sent up, and that the Captain remained in the chart room and did nothing. Those are the facts which are relevant for the purpose of this Enquiry. If he had taken another course, and if he had done what one would have expected him to do, he would have immediately steamed to the assistance of this vessel in distress. I do not profess to say - I doubt very much whether anyone can say - exactly the distance which the "Titanic" was from the "Californian" at the time of sending up the rockets. But according to the testimony (and this is not unimportant.) of all those on the "Titanic" who saw the lights, the vessel they saw was, according to them, at a distance of something like five or six miles.
The Commissioner:
Who were the Witnesses on the "Titanic" who saw the Morse light?
The Attorney-General:
My Lord, I think it is only Boxhall.
The Commissioner:
At page 158, Question 6761, Captain Lord says this with reference to the green light that he saw and the distance. He is asked: "What distance do you think she was from you when you could see the lights? - (A.) About five miles."
The Attorney-General:
That is about what is said by the "Titanic" Witnesses.
The Commissioner:
And that agrees with the "Titanic" Witnesses.
The Attorney-General:
Yes. There are a number of Witnesses who speak to that light on the "Titanic." I agree that there is some discrepancy between the Witnesses as to exactly how the light bore with regard to them. There are two factors to bear in mind in that connection which, I think, are essential to bear in mind, in order to understand the evidence. The one is that the "Californian" was swinging during the whole of this time. It explains what otherwise might be inexplicable - that is, why at first the green light is seen and then subsequently the red light. It explains it, I was going to say, for this reason -
The Commissioner:
Seen by the "Californian"?
The Attorney-General:
Yes. The "Californian" first of all sees the green light, the "Californian" is then heading about E. N. E.; it is after she stopped. The "Titanic" is proceeding to the Westward, and at this time the "Titanic" would expose her green light to a vessel which is heading E. N. E. The "Titanic" would be exposing a green light quite clearly.
The Commissioner:
At what time?
The Attorney-General:
I am speaking of the time now when the light was first seen.
The Commissioner:
When was that?
The Attorney-General:
The "Californian" stops at 10.20 and she shows the light. The Captain sees the light before he goes below into the chart room. It is between 11 and 11.30, he puts it. He says 11, and then in another question he says, it might have been a little later. But, in any event he sees the vessel coming towards him, and, heading as he was, the "Titanic" would be approaching him in the course she was taking, and heading, as he was in the "Californian," he would see her starboard light. That is what he does see. He said at the question before that, which your Lordship referred to just now; where he said she was then about five miles off. "I saw it some time between 11 and half-past; I do not know exactly. (Q.) What distance do you think she was from you when you could see the lights? - (A.) About five miles. (Q.) As much as that? - (A.) About that, I should think."
Then after that the "Titanic," when she comes into collision with the iceberg, also swings. The evidence about that is the evidence of Rowe, at page 419, Question 17658. He gives the same evidence. First of all he saw a light four or five miles off, and then he asked, at Question 17667, "When you saw this light did you notice whether the head of the 'Titanic' was altering either to port or to starboard? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) You did notice? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Was your vessel's head swinging at the time you saw this light of this other vessel? - (A.) I put it down that her stern was swinging. (Q.) Which way was her stern swinging? - (A.) Practically dead South I believe then. (Q.) Do you mean her head was facing South? - (A.) No, her head was facing North. She was coming round to starboard. (Q.) The stern was swung to the South? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) And at that time you saw this white light? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) How was it bearing from you? - (A.) When I first saw it it was half a point on the port bow, and roughly about two points when I left the bridge."
The Commissioner:
What Question is that?
The Attorney-General:
That is 17667 to 17674. If your Lordship will look now at Gibson's evidence at page 172 you will find the evidence of the "Californian" swinging, Question 7470. "Can you tell us whether your ship during that hour had been heading the same way, or whether she had shifted her position? - (A.) The ship was swinging round. (Q.) Your ship was? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Of course, if your ship was swinging round, even though the other ship was stationary, after a bit her lights would bear differently from you? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) When you say it was 2 1/2 points upon the starboard beam, do you mean forward of the starboard beam? - (A.) Before the beam. (Q.) Five and a half from the bows? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) You say that the 'Californian'. was swinging. Can you tell me, do you know, which way she was swinging? - (A.) She was swinging towards the nor'ard." Then came the statement as to what he saw after that. If you look at page 186, Question 8150, you will find what Mr. Groves, the Third Officer, says about that. This is after he had seen the two masthead lights, your Lordship will recollect. "How were you heading? - (A.) At that time we would be heading N.E. when I saw that steamer first, but we were swinging all the time because when we stopped the order was given for the helm to be put hard a-port, and we were swinging, but very, very slowly." He deals with this again at page 188. I will begin at Question 8239 so as to make it intelligible. "(Q.) It was after you had seen those white lights disappear that you had a conversation with him in which he said to you, 'the only passenger steamer is the "Titanic'"? - (A.) That is so. (Mr. Rowlatt.) Did you have any further conversation with the Captain? - (A.) I did not. (Q.) Did he stay on the bridge or go down again? - (A.) I do not think he would have been up there for more than three minutes at the outside with me. (Q.) Then he went down again? - (A.) He did. (Q.) Did you stop on the bridge? - (A.) I stopped on the bridge. (Q.) Did you continue to observe the steamer? - (A.) After I had tried ineffectually to Morse her I did not pay any particular attention to her. (Q.) Did you not notice her, or did you notice her? - (A.) Oh! I noticed her, certainly. (Q.) Was she keeping her same position? - (A.) The same position, yes. We were swinging slowly to port, very slowly." That is a mistake, as the Admiral points out. It is corrected later. "(Q.) Did you not take her bearing by the compass? - (A.) Not that steamer's bearing, no. (Q.) She would appear to be coming round more towards your stern? - (A.) No, she would appear, as we were swinging, to be working towards our head. (Q.) I thought you were swinging to port? - (A.) No, we were swinging to starboard that is, to the right hand." It is worth taking a note also of the evidence of Mr. Stone at page 182, Question 8061: "We were heading E.N.E., at the beginning of the watch, and slowly turned round to W.S.W. When I lost sight of this steamer we would be heading then about W.S.W., and she would be about two points on our port bow. I saw then her stern light, not her red light. She shut in her red light. (Q.) You must have seen her green light if it was showing, before she shut in her stern light? - (A.) If she shut in her red light. I did not say she shut in her stern light. She did not shut her stern light in at all the whole period."
Now, the effect of that evidence is to show this, that both vessels were swinging, and the consequence is you get some explanation, if you take into account that they are swinging, and that this vessel, which was heading E.N.E., was swinging all the time, and that also the "Titanic's" stern was swinging to the South, as we have heard it, one gets some explanation of why it is that, first, you hear from the Witnesses that they saw a green light and that subsequently they saw a port light. If I may illustrate that, suppose you have the "Californian's" head E.N.E., and you have the vessel going to the Westward, almost due W., I assume, of course, during that time the starboard light is exposed. First of all there would be the masthead lights seen of the vessel approaching the "Californian" being still, and then the green light of the "Titanic" would be seen. Then the "Titanic" comes to a stop, having approached a certain distance, and then she begins to swing to the Southward, and the consequence is she is in that position (indicating.) The other vessel is swinging all the time. When she gets in that position the port light would be exposed, and that would explain why it is that you get first of all a green light seen, and then a red light, of the vessel according to the evidence which is given. The whole importance of it is, of course, not so very great as your Lordship must come to the conclusion, the same conclusion that one of the Officers on board the vessel did, that the vessel which they saw that night and the vessel which had been sending out the distress signals was the "Titanic."
If one wanted any corroboration, but I do not dwell upon it inasmuch as your Lordship and those associated with you are satisfied about this, it would be found in Gibson's evidence when he talks about the blaze of light on the deck of the vessel. I should have thought the last thing you would see in the ordinary course of things on a cargo vessel would be a blaze of light on the deck, and that is a thing he talks of right through, a blaze of light right through. That is what you would expect to find on a passenger steamer, and no doubt what he did see. Once we have got as far as having established that these distress signals came from the "Titanic," that the Captain knew of them, and that he did not proceed either to the rescue of the vessel in distress or take what I should have thought was the step which was dictated at once when there was any doubt about at, that is, to call up the wireless operator and let him get into communication with the vessel, one gets really a state of things which is quite inexplicable.
The Commissioner:
It is a most extraordinary thing that no attempt was made to communicate with the "Titanic."
The Attorney-General:
Quite, the more extraordinary inasmuch as I have certainly understood as the Rule which everybody who goes to sea would never fail to observe, that if you see a vessel in distress you must do your utmost to get to it. I have always understood, certainly amongst sailors, not only in this country, but elsewhere, that that is a Rule of honour from which they do not depart, although they may commit other errors. In this particular case I am unable to find any possible explanation of what happened, except it may be that the Captain of the vessel was in ice for the first time, and would not take the risk of going to the rescue of another vessel which might have got into trouble, as he thought, from proceeding through ice when he himself had stopped. But even that does not explain why they did not call up the wireless operator to ascertain what the condition of things was. We have heard no explanation of it. I think your Lordship is left absolutely in the dark with reference to it. One can only conjecture, and I do not know that it is perhaps quite safe to speculate upon the reasons that made Captain Lord neither come out of his chart room to see what was happening, nor to take any step to communicate with the vessel in distress, even such a very slight effort as to have the wireless operator called up.
So far as it throws any light upon this Enquiry I do submit that the answer is to be found in the evidence to which I have already called attention, and that really we get very little assistance by going further into it. That this vessel, the "Californian," could have got to the "Titanic" and might have got to the "Titanic" in time to save the passengers is, I am afraid, the irresistible conclusion from this evidence. If she was at this distance of 5 to 7 miles, and she could steam 11 knots an hour; she did steam 11 - she could, in fact, do as much as 13 - even allowing for her having to deviate so as to avoid the ice-field, there still would have been a very considerable opportunity for her to have got there in time, more especially, I think, if you take into account that there must have been some discrepancy between the clocks, or anyhow, the time as given of these events by the Witnesses for the "Californian." We know, fortunately, in one way the times at which the various things happened on board the "Titanic" with some exactness, partly by reason of the wireless messages which enable us to tell accurately what was happening within a few moments right up to the time when the "Titanic" was no longer able to send wireless messages, and if you put those times together, and compare them with the times of the "Californian," it is quite plain that at a quarter to one they were sending up rockets, and it is equally plain that the "Californian" must have seen the first or among the first of the rockets that were sent up by the "Titanic"; and it, therefore, must place the time, if you are comparing it with the "Titanic" time, at a quarter to one or thereabouts, and not a quarter-past one.
In point of fact the "Titanic" did not go down for an hour and a half after that, and that gave an hour and a half for this vessel, which could steam as much as 13 knots, but was certainly able to steam 11 knots; and putting it even further than the five to seven miles, it still gave her ample time to get there. Of course, the Captain says he was 19 1/2 miles away. No human being would suggest that the "Californian" could have seen the sidelights of the "Titanic," either her red light or her green light at a distance of 19 1/2 miles. She must have been within an easy distance in order that her masthead lights and her sidelights were seen, as they were, by the "Californian."
And, my Lord, I would add to that that the "Californian" is shown to have been seen by the "Titanic"; that in any event the light that was seen so far as we know, according to all enquiries made and according to all the evidence put before you, was the light of the "Californian." I will not say that all the evidence points irresistibly to that, but I do say this, that if you compare the "Titanic" evidence with the "Californian" it is abundantly plain that the distance between them must have been comparatively small, that is to say certainly within five to seven miles, and could not have been 19 to 20 miles as the Captain of the "Californian" suggests.
Now I do not propose to go further into the evidence of the "Californian" unless your Lordship desires it, because it seems to me that when you have got those facts, really there is sufficient to establish quite clearly that these distress signals which were seen, were seen at a distance which would have enabled the "Californian" to get to the "Titanic." That is no doubt a material point, in view of the question which is put to your Lordship.
Now, my Lord, that I think concludes all that I desire to say to you upon the evidence in the case. The final conclusion to which I would call attention would be this, that this Court may recommend most useful precautions for saving life. The Board of Trade and Parliament may take the amplest care that proper precautions should be prescribed, and that there should be a sufficient protection given to those who are sailing on the seas against loss of life in the event of disaster. No human wisdom however great it may be, will, by means of regulations of this character or of Acts of Parliaments, be able to prevent, I will not say a recurrence of such a disaster as this, but the recurrence of disasters at sea. That is for the simple reason that everything depends, all the safety of the vessel depends, not upon the precautions that have been taken either by Government departments, or in consequence of any Act of Parliament, but upon the exercise of judgment and care by those who are responsible for the navigation. I can only say that as the result of this Enquiry it is to be hoped that no vessel will ever take such utterly unnecessary risks as I submit were taken on this voyage - that no vessel will ever again take such a risk as that, and that it will always be borne in mind by those who are responsible for the navigation that a little longer period passed by the passengers on board the vessel, and a few more hours taken in the passage from the United Kingdom to New York, or the return journey, are after all, and will after all, be very much better in the interests of everybody than to press along at a great rate of speed when there has been some indication of danger ahead. Nobody can say, I do not suppose any human being would be able to predict, that a vessel might meet an iceberg again in the same conditions as happened with the "Titanic"; but what one can predict is that there will come occasions upon which those responsible for the navigation will have to make up their minds whether it is not more prudent in the circumstances, to reduce speed and to go at a moderate speed, instead of pressing forward through the night in order to arrive at a particular time which they desire, and take, as I submit they were taking by this, an utterly unnecessary risk.
That is one lesson which, apart from every other lesson that may have been taught in this case, will, I hope, be borne upon those who are responsible for the navigation of our vessels. Your Lordship has had considerable experience in the Court over which you presided, more particularly in the Admiralty Division, of cases of collisions at sea. I would appeal to your Lordship's experience and the experience of those who are practiced in those Courts and those who also have experience in the navigation of vessels. Speaking generally the two causes of disaster to vessels are failure to keep a good look-out and proceeding at too great a rate of speed.
This disaster, as I submit, impresses upon all those who would have to consider these questions how important it is that in both these matters, both as regards look-out and as regards speed, the greatest care should be taken, when there is a definite indication, as there was given according to the view I have submitted in this case, of a possible danger by meeting either icebergs or ice-fields.
It only remains for me to say to your Lordship, if I may respectfully say so, that the latitude which you have seen fit to allow during the course of this case, so that all questions might be asked which would be of the slightest use, has had this effect, that it has very much narrowed the range of controversy, when we get to the end of the Enquiry. The result of it has been that on many of the points it has been shown quite clearly there can be no dispute, and that there is nothing, therefore, into which your Lordship would have to enquire closely for the purpose of making your Report. The points at issue have been very much narrowed. The result of it has been that, in any event, everything has been put before this Court, and I hope that your Lordship will be satisfied of that, that all the evidence that can have been of use to you has been presented to you, and certainly, as far as the Board of Trade is concerned, that all the material which can be of any value has been put before you.
With that, and thanking your Lordship, and thanking your Lordship in all earnestness and sincerity for the patience with which you have listened to this long Enquiry, I leave the matter to your Lordship for your Report.
The Commissioner:
Very well. Thank you, Mr. Attorney. I will try to get this Report out in reasonable time.
(Adjourned sine die.
