Deposition of EDWARD WILDING, contd.
Q. How high were those bulkheads in the Lusitania?
- I would scarcely like to say from memory; I have seen and worked at it; it was, roughly speaking, about the same as the Olympic.
Q. Was there a Bulkhead Committee in England of the Board of Trade?
- There have been such.
Q. Was there one in 1891?
- The principal one until, after the Titanic accident, was one that sat in 1890 and 1891.
Q. There has been another one since the Titanic accident?
- Since the Titanic accident.
Q. And they made a report last November?
- The report is dated last November; it was published in February.
Q. Does that relate to decks as well as bulkheads?
- It mentions decks.
Q. Is that available? Have you got it here?
- I have a copy here; it is available as a published document.
Q. Is it a matter that concerns shipbuilders practically in their building of ships, the report of 1891 or the report of 1914?
- The report of 1891 does concern shipbuilders, because, though the proposals for regulations were never officially put into force, it was recognized by the Board of Trade as a standard of comparison; if you wished to discuss subdivisions with them they referred to that as their standard.
Q. I t was used as a standard of shipbuilding by the Board of Trade?
- It was; of bulkheads, and of subdivision.
Q. And if a shipbuilder were building a ship subject to the Board of Trade certificate, would that shipbuilder have to comply with the recommendations of the Bulkhead Committee?
- Not necessarily; because it was not enforced on all ships; but there were certain advantages granted to ships which did comply.
Q. Did the Titanic in its construction comply with the recommendations of the Bulkhead Committee of 1891?
Mr. Betts:
Objected to as comparison of a written document.
The Court:
It is of no value as it now stands.
Mr. Foster:
Objected to as going too far.
The Court:
The case is a very important case to everybody concerned, and I propose to give a very wide degree of latitude to all.
- It did.
Q. The Titanic had no longitudinal bulkheads?
- No.
Q. The Lusitania, and Mauretania have?
- They have.
Q. The longitudinal bulkheads in those two boats are the inner shell which forms the inner lining of the coal bunkers and then there is a further longitudinal bulkhead low down in the ship?
- The further longitudinal bulkhead is only in the engine room.
Q. Am I correct in my statement as to the bunkers?
- Yes.
Q. Why didn't you provide longitudinal bulkheads in the Titanic?
Mr. Betts:
Objected to.
The Court:
Decision reserved.
A. In my judgment they were dangerous.
Q. In what respect?
- That if the ship is injured on one side and the water cannot get freely across to the other side the ship will take a more or less severe list, which at once puts out of action the boats on the high side.
Q. According to the newspaper reports is that what happened in the case of the Lusitania?
Objected to.
The Court:
Objection sustained, because it was based on newspaper reports. The testimony may be entirely relevant, as to which I am unable to say, because I have not seen Captain Turner's testimony; but the basis of the inquiry must be some fact.
Q. How can that be remedied and the ship restored to a level keel, or nearly so?
- By flooding the other side; but it is a slow process and you may not have time to do it.
Q. Are war vessels built as the Lusitania and Mauretania were built, to any extent?
- Yes, usually.
Q. Usually built in that way?
- Usually built in that way.
Q. What is the object of building them like that?
- To obtain minute subdivision for protection against torpedo explosions.
Q. What was the width of the bunkers in the Lusitania, about?
- 12 or 15 feet; I have been in them.
Q. Assuming that a vessel built like the Lusitania is injured by a collision or other cause which opens one or more compartments on one side only; what do you say would be the effect on the stability of the ship, particularly with reference to launching of boats?
- Taking the Lusitania which has been quoted as the example; if it was only one section of the bunkers it would probably still be possible to launch the boats; if it was two sections it would be doubtful. If it was three sections it would be impossible to launch the boats on the other side.
BY MR. FOSTER:
Q. You were taking the Lusitania as an example. You are assuming some reports that you have read.
- No, I am only assuming the plan of the ship as I saw it.
BY MR BURLINGHAM
Q. Coming now, if you please, to the lifeboat equipment on the Titanic. There were twenty boats, weren't there?
- There were twenty boats.
Q. Consisting of 14 lifeboats?
- 14 thirty-foot lifeboats, 2 twenty-six foot emergency boats, and 4 twenty-six foot Engelhardt boats.
Q. What are they?
- They are boats somewhat in the form of a fairly deep raft, with collapsible canvas topsides, bulwarks.
Q. Were those lifeboats furnished by Harland & Wolff?
- They were, except the Engelhardt, which are made by another company; they were supplied through us.
Q. Were they ever tested, boats of this make, were they ever tested by you?
- Yes.
Q. Of these dimensions?
- Yes.
Q. The lowering of them. the full distance, how about that?
- Those boats are lowered with weights put in in place of people.
Q. Did you ever superintend such a test yourself?
- Not the whole of them; it was not my business to superintend, but I was present when the test was carried out.
Q. Was that the Olympic or the Titanic?
- That was it the Olympic, I believe.
Q. Where was the test made?
- At the fitting-out wharf at our yard.
Q. What was the test, in brief?
- The boat was loaded with the weights which corresponded to the full number of passengers.
Q. Separate weights?
- Half hundred-weight weights that you put in and distribute them about over the boat to represent roughly the loading with passengers.
Q. Up to the boat's capacity?
- Yes, a little over, in fact.
Q. The equivalent of how many passengers?
- The equivalent of 68 people. We intended to get the boats passed for 68; they were eventually only passed for 65; the equivalent load was put in the boat which was lowered in the presence of the Board of Trade surveyor, for his satisfaction. In the Olympic it would be about May, 1911.
Q. Did the boat stand the test?
- Perfectly.
Q. Any tendency to buckle or give?
- No; as matter of fact, though the boat was tested, it was not done as the deliberate part of the test of the boat.
Q. What was the object of the test?
- To test the lifting power of the winch.
Q. You were familiar with the requirements of the Board of Trade at that time for lifeboats?
- Yes.
Q. Were these boats that you furnished to the Titanic in excess of that requirement?
Mr. Betts:
Objected to because the requirements were put in evidence and the witness has testified to what the construction of the boats was.
BY MR. BROUGHAM:
Q. Were you speaking of the minimum requirements?
- Yes.
BY MR. BURLINGHAM:
Q. To what extent?
- Additional equipment was supplied to most of the lifeboats; the rules only asked for four compasses, and every lifeboat had a compass; there was addition. In the matter of provision tanks, additional oars and so on above the legally minimum requirement of the Board of Trade.
Q. Were any of these large steamers at that time required to carry or did they carry sufficient boat capacity for all passengers?
Mr. Betts:
Objected to.
Q. Well, I will ask as to the requirement. I will strike out that question and ask was there any requirement of the Board of Trade or Lloyds at the time the Titanic sailed from Southampton in April, 1912 as to the number of lifeboats that should be furnished?
- Yes.
Q. For passengers and crew?
Mr. Betts:
Objected to. The rules are the best evidence.
The Court:
The printed or written rules are, of course, the best evidence; but this is taken for convenience, presumably as a preliminary question.
- Certainly, and are covered by the passenger certificate, put in this morning.
The Board of Trade rules are marked Exhibit 8 for identification.
Q. Was the equipment of the Titanic in the matter of lifeboats up to the requirements of this book?
- It was in excess.
Q. Were there any printed Lloyds rules applied to a vessel of the size of the Titanic?
- Not at that time, or now.
Q. What was the highest ship covered by Lloyds rules at that time?
- 550 feet long, and about 11,000 tons.
Q. Has it been extended since?
- It has.
Q. To what?
- About 650 feet long and 18,000 to 20,000 tons.
Q. Do you refer to Lloyds Register?
- The rules issued by Lloyds Register.
Q. Are any of the White Star boats built under Lloyds Register?
- They are not.
Q. Are they all built pursuant to the rules of the Board of Trade?
- Yes, all our British boats have to be to carry passengers.
Q. You are familiar with Lloyds rules?
- Generally.
Q. Do Harland & Wolff build some vessels under Lloyds survey?
- About one-third to one-half of those we build.
Q. The construction of the Titanic as regards plating, bulkhead plating, for instance, was it up to Lloyds or above Lloyds or below Lloyds?
- Above Lloyds; in excess of Lloyds new rules, which were not published until after the Titanic was built.
Q. How much in excess?
- The bulkhead plating was from 10 to 20 percent in excess, the stiffening 75 to 100 percent. in excess, for reasons which I gave earlier.
Q. You spoke this morning of 17 large steamers having been built in the world over 650 feet in length.
- That was the number launched prior to May 1st, 1912.
Q. How many of those were classed in Lloyds Register?
- Three; the Lusitania, the Mauretania and the Aquitania, three big Cunarders.
Q. The answer of Seward and others in this case contains the following statement:
"The claimants deny that the petitioner had used due diligence to make the steamship (Titanic) seaworthy, and deny that she was, prior to the accident mentioned in the petition, tight, staunch, strong or seaworthy."
What do you say, as an expert and as one of the designers and builders of the Titanic, as to her seaworthiness at the time she left your yard after the trial trip, and when she sailed?
Mr. Betts:
I object.
Mr. Everett:
I suggest that this witness be allowed to say anything that is in his mind, because your Honor can judge with great accuracy what is hearsay and what is judgment, and on what his judgment is founded.
The Court:
I will take it.
- That she had reached the best standard of seaworthiness and was absolutely seaworthy; that she would not have been allowed to sail, if she was not, from a British port.
Q. You are familiar, are you not, with the standard of shipbuilding the world over?
- Generally, yes.
Q. And were so familiar in April, 1912?
- I was, generally.
Q. How did the Titanic measure up to the highest standard known as the time in the building of ocean passenger steamers?
- She was the best we could do at the time, and surpassed any standard that was set up.
Q. How much did she cost?
Mr. Foster:
Objected to.
The Court:
I will allow it.
- Rather over a million and a half Sterling, or seven and a half million dollars.
Q. That was not a contract price, was it?
- No.
Q. In the actual construction of the ship did you carry out the plans, as contemplated, so far as strength goes; or did you surpass them in construction, or fall below them?
- We worked it to what we contemplated. That is, we set ourselves a standard and we worked to that standard.
Q. Successfully?
- Without any difficulty; it was only a question of taking pains and spending money.
Q. This same answer makes six specific charges of defect or unseaworthiness in the construction of the Titanic, and I propose to take them up one by one and ask you specifically to testify with regard to these matters of fact. First, the answer states that "the petitioner failed to have the Titanic constructed in such a manner as to be seaworthy and as to prevent her from foundering in case of a collision such as occurred, in that the bulkheads of said steamship were not of sufficient height and in some parts were not of sufficient strength." What do you say as to whether the bulkheads of the Titanic, as constructed, were in accordance with the highest standard of the shipbuilding art at that time, as applied to passenger ocean steamers?
- They were of the highest standard.
Q. The answer goes on to say:
"In that the so-called watertight compartments of the vessel were not in fact watertight, inasmuch as the top sides thereof were not watertight.."
What were the watertight compartments of the vessel, in fact? Were they watertight?
- Those in the double bottom and the peak tanks, yes. Those above the inner bottom were only watertight so far as bottom and sides were concerned; not tops.
Q. By the expression "topsides" do you mean the deck?
- The deck, the lid of the compartment, the roof.
Q. The answer goes on to say:
"In that there were no watertight decks extending the whole length of the vessel."
- There were not.
Q. Further the answer says:
"In that the hull of said vessel was not constructed with an inner watertight shell in addition to the outer watertight shell, so that if the outer shell were injured, the vessel could still float by means of the inner shell."
You did not have such a shell?
- Except at the bottom; but not on the sides.
Q. (Reading):
"In that the watertight doors in the bulkheads of said vessel were not of sufficient strength and were not in proper working condition."
Were they of sufficient strength?
- They were.
Q. Were they in good working order?
- They were closed.
Mr. Betts:
I object.
The Court:
When she left your yard?
The Witness:
They were closed by me the night before she sailed. I closed them the night before she sailed from Southampton.
Q. The answer says there were no longitudinal bulkheads in the vessel. There were none, were there?
- There were none.
Q. Turning to the interrogatories annexed to the answer, the thirty-fourth interrogatory is as follows:
"State (a) what trial or trials of the Titanic were made before her voyage from Southampton on April 10th, 1912; (b) of what did such trial or trials consist and what was the time consumed thereby; (c) was an attempt made on such trial to see at how short a distance the Titanic could be stopped when going at full speed."
If you have absolute knowledge, your own knowledge as to that matter, please answer those questions.
- Some of them I will answer yes. Just what does Mr. Betts mean when he uses the word "trial"?
Mr. Betts:
You see it refers in the end of the question to the trial of the Titanic, and it means so far as stopping, going at full speed.
Q. Was the trial of the Titanic made prior to her voyage from Southampton on April 10th, 1912?
- Yes.
Q. Was a trial made to see at how short a distance she could be stopped when going at full speed?
- She was not going at quite full speed; the Olympic had been tried at full speed.
Q. Did you take part in those trials?
- I did.
Q. Where was the trial of the Titanic had?
- It was off the mouth of the Belfast Lough.
Q. How long a stretch do you have there?
- 500 miles down the Irish Sea.
Q. Were you on the bridge during the trial?
- I was on the bridge and the observations were made by two of the officers.
Q. Will you state briefly the trial and the result?
- We had a buoy overboard; the ship was run up to this buoy and two officers -- unfortunately two of those who afterwards went down in the ship -- were stationed with sextants for observation purposes under my direction. The buoy was floating. The ship ran up to it. As the ship passed the buoy I signalled to the captain and he gave the order that both engines were to be reversed full speed astern.
Q. What was the speed at that time?
- The speed at that time was -
Q. Full speed?
- Not quite full speed; we were going fast.
Q. How were the engine telegraphs standing?
- The telegraph showed full speed, but we were not doing that; we were doing about twenty knots. It was fast; it was not slow. The ship was going at twenty knots with the indicator at full speed and the order was given full speed astern.
Q. Both engines?
- Yes; that automatically stopped the turbine; when the engineer reverses his engine it automatically cuts out the turbine.
Q. In how short a distance did the ship stop?
- Rather under half a mile.
Q. You mean a nautical mile?
- I mean a nautical mile; about half a land mile.
Q. Have you ever made any experiments of the same nature on the Olympic at a higher rate of speed than the Titanic was going under?
- We did, during her trial at the same place, and we were doing about twenty-two knots in the Olympic.
Q. What did you find as a result of the trial the distance that she moved before she came to a dead stop?
- The engines were rather more smartly handled on the occasion of the Olympic than the Titanic, and she stopped in just about the same distance; rather less, although the speed was higher. That was in May or June, 1911; May, I think it was.
BY THE COURT:
Q. In this trip of the Titanic that you have described did the vessels come to a dead stop?
- Absolutely; the observations are taken by my instructions -- I take the time -- every 15 seconds of the distance of the buoy; and in order to make sure that we have stopped we continue until the ship has got good sternway on her and then we plot the results to see how far the ship had run, and take the point which is furthest away and that was the maximum advance that she made after the order was given to reverse.
BY MR. BURLINGHAM:
Q. Where did you stand when you gave the signal to stop?
- I was standing at the extreme wing of the bridge in the shelter looking down at the buoy which was close over the side.
Q. And the officer was on the bridge?
- The officer was on the bridge about as far as from myself to that wall (indicating 15 - 20 feet), and it was Captain Smith who gave the order to reverse. I dropped my hand and he turned the engine lever over. It was practically instantaneous.
Q. Were any tests ever made of the Titanic's turning?
- Yes.
Q. When was that?
- Just before the stopping trial; half an hour or an hour before.
Q. On the same occasion?
- On the same occasion, the same day, the same place.
Q. Did you superintend those tests?
- Yes.
Q. Was it at full speed or other speeds?
- At several speeds.
Q. Give us the results o f the turning test when the vessel was proceeding at full speed.
- Running straight with the helm put hard over she turned in a complete circle; and the distance across the circle from the original course was between 4 and 4-l/2 lengths of the vessel, in diameter; that is, the tactical diameter.
Q. That is, she traveled forward how far?
- She traveled forward about 2-1/2 lengths.
Q. Won't you give that in feet?
- It is about 2100 feet, or thereabouts; 700 yards.
Q. And that was her forward movement?
- Yes.
Q. What was her lateral movement?
- Well, about four thousand and some hundred feet; 4,000 feet -- no, it was under 4,000 feet; just under; between 3800 and 3900.
Q. The fifty-first interrogatory I will read:
"Had any tests been made with the Titanic going at 22 knots an hour to see what distance she would traverse before she could be turned two points from her course by means of the most advantageous management of her helm and the engines? If so, give details thereof."
- None were made, for that purpose.
Q. Were they with the Olympic subsequently?
- Not for that specific purpose at all.
Q. Subsequent to the Titanic disaster had any tests been made of the Olympic by you?
- Not by me personally, but under my direction.
Q. For what purpose?
- To ascertain, if possible, what the advance and lateral movements would be whilst the ship was turning two points under orders assumed to have been given, or reported to have been given at the time of the accident.
Q. That is, the vessel proceeding at full speed ahead, say 22 knots, received an order hard astarboard?
- Yes.
Q. And succeeded in deflecting her course A. And reversed both engines.
Q. And with both engines reversed succeeded in deflecting her course two points from the fore and aft course?
- Yes.
Q. How far did the test show that she went before she shifted two points?
Mr. Betts:
Objected to.
The Court:
Take the answer.
- An advance of 440 yards.
BY THE COURT:
Q. Were you present when this test was made?
- I was not. I was in court before Lord Mersey.
Q. What has become of the man who was present?
- My senior assistant; he is dead.
The Court:
Strike it out.
BY MR. BURLINGHAM:
Q. I will put the fifty-second interrogatory:
"Had any tests been made with the Titanic going at the rate of 22 or 22-l/2 knots an hour to see if it would be possible, by manipulation of the helm and engines, to prevent the said vessel from colliding with a, stationary object sighted dead ahead at a distance of a quarter of a mile? If so, give details thereof."
- No, no specific test for that purpose.
Q. Any similar tests for the Olympic?
- No special tests for that purpose.
Q. From the tests that you made can you say whether at that speed she could avoid an object sighted dead ahead at a distance of a quarter of a mile?
- It depends on the size of the object.
Recess till 2 P. M.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Met pursuant to adjournment at 2 P. M., as before.
EDWARD WILDING, resumes the stand.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. BURLINGHAM:
Q. The sixtieth interrogatory states the height of the decks, gives a table showing the length of the various decks of the Titanic and the height of the next deck above, and the distance of each such deck from the 34 foot 7 waterline amidships, either above or below. Is that a correct statement?
- The heights given for between decks are correct.
Q. Is everything correct in the statement?
- Yes, those figures are correct.
Q. That table is correct? (The witness compares the statement of Lord Mersey's report with the interrogatory, No. 60.)
- That table is correct.
Q. The seventy-third interrogatory is as follows:
"Is it not a fact that the davits with which the steamship Titanic was equipped were designed to handle three lifeboats each?"
What do you say to that?
- Well, of course I am not the davit maker; what the davit maker designed them to do I therefore cannot answer; what they could do as a fact from observation I could answer.