I wish to say distinctly that no evidence has been given in the course of this case which would substantiate a charge that any attempt was made to keep back the third-class passengers. * * * I desire further 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.
I wish to say distinctly that no evidence has been given in the course of this case which would substantiate a charge that any attempt was made to keep back the third-class passengers. * * * I desire further 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.
I am satisfied that the explanation of the excessive proportion of third-class passengers lost is not to be found in the suggestion that the third-class passengers were in any way unfairly treated. They were not unfairly treated.
MEANS TAKEN TO PROCURE ASSISTANCE.
As soon as the dangerous condition of the ship was realized, messages were sent by the master's orders to all steamers within reach. At 12.15 a. m. the distress signal CQD was sent. This was heard by several steamships and by Cape Race. By 12.25 Mr. Boxall, the fourth officer, had worked out the correct position of theTitanic, and then another message was sent: "Come at once, we have struck a berg." This was heard by the Cunard steamerCarpathia, which was at this time bound from New York to Liverpool and 58 miles away. TheCarpathiaanswered, saying that she was coming to the assistance of theTitanic. This was reported to Capt. Smith on the boat deck. At 12.26 a message was sent out, "Sinking; can not hear for noise of steam." Many other messages were also sent, but as they were only heard by steamers which were too far away to render help, it is not necessary to refer to them. At 1.45 a message was heard by theCarpathia, "Engine-room full up to boilers." The last message sent out was "CQ" which was faintly heard by the steamerVirginian. This message was sent at 2.17. It thus appears that the Marconi apparatus was at work until within a few minutes of the foundering of theTitanic.
Meanwhile Mr. Boxall was sending up distress signals from the deck. These signals (rockets) were sent off at intervals from a socket by No. 1 emergency boat on the boat deck. They were the ordinary distress signals, exploding in the air and throwing off white stars. The firing of these signals began about the time that No. 7 boat was lowered (12.45 a. m.), and it continued until Mr. Boxall left the ship at about 1.45.
Mr. Boxall was also using a Morse light from the bridge in the direction of a ship whose lights he saw about half a point on the port bow of theTitanicat a distance, as he thought, of about 5 or 6 miles. He got no answer. In all, Mr. Boxall fired about eight rockets. There appears to be no doubt that the vessel whose lights he saw was theCalifornian. The evidence from theCalifornianspeaks of eight rockets having been seen between 12.30 and 1.40. TheCalifornianheard none of theTitanic'smessages; she had only one Marconi operator on board and he was asleep.
THE RESCUE BY THE STEAMSHIP "CARPATHIA."
On the 15th of April the steamshipCarpathia, 13,600 tons gross, of the Cunard Line, Mr. Arthur Henry Rostron, master, was on her passageto Liverpool from New York. She carried some 740 passengers and 325 crew.
On receipt of theTitanic's first distress message the captain immediately ordered the ship to be turned around and driven at her highest speed (17-1/2 knots) in the direction of theTitanic. He also informed theTitanicby wireless that he was coming to her assistance, and he subsequently received various messages from her. At about 2.40 a. m. he saw a green flare which, as the evidence shows, was being sent up by Mr. Boxall in No. 2 boat. From this time until 4 a. m. Capt. Rostron was altering his course continually in order to avoid icebergs. He fired rockets in answer to the signals he saw from Boxall's boat. At 4 o'clock he considered he was practically up to the position given and he stopped his ship at 4.05. He sighted the first boat (No. 2) and picked her up at 4.10. There was then a large number of icebergs around him, and it was just daylight. Eventually he picked up in all 13 lifeboats, two emergency boats, and two collapsible boats, all of which were taken on board theCarpathia, the other boats being abandoned as damaged or useless. From these boats he took on board 712 persons, one of whom died shortly afterwards. The boats were scattered over an area of 4 or 5 miles, and it was 8 a. m. before they had all been picked up. He saw very little wreckage when he got near to the scene of the disaster, only a few deck chairs, cork life belts, etc., and only one body. The position was then 41° 46´ N., 50° 14´ W.
TheCarpathiasubsequently returned to New York with the passengers and crew she had rescued.
The court desires to record its great admiration of Capt. Rostron's conduct. He did the very best that could be done.
NUMBERS SAVED.
The following were the numbers saved:
It is here necessary to consider the circumstances relating to the steamshipCalifornian.
On the 14th of April the steamshipCalifornian, of the Leyland Line, Mr. Stanley Lord, master, was on her passage from London, which port she left on April 5, to Boston, United States, where she subsequently arrived on April 19. She was a vessel of 6,223 tons gross and 4,038 net. Her full speed was 12-1/2 to 13 knots. She had a passenger certificate, but was not carrying any passengers at the time. She belonged to the International Mercantile Marine Co., the owners of theTitanic.
At 7.30 p.m., ship's time, on April 14, a wireless message was sent from this ship to theAntillian:
To CAPTAIN,Antillian:Six thirty p.m., apparent ship's time, latitude 42° 3´ N., longitude 49° 9´ W. Three large bergs, 5 miles to southward of us. Regards.LORD
To CAPTAIN,Antillian:
Six thirty p.m., apparent ship's time, latitude 42° 3´ N., longitude 49° 9´ W. Three large bergs, 5 miles to southward of us. Regards.
LORD
The message was intercepted by theTitanic, and when the Marconi operator (Evans) of theCalifornianoffered this ice report to the Marconi operator of theTitanic, shortly after 7.30 p. m., the latter replied:
It is all right. I heard you sending it to theAntillian, and I have got it.
It is all right. I heard you sending it to theAntillian, and I have got it.
TheCalifornianproceeded on her course S. 89° W. true until 10.20 p. m., ship's time, when she was obliged to stop and reverse engines because she was running into field ice, which stretched as far as could then be seen to the northward and southward.
The master told the court that he made her position at that time to be 42° 5´ N., 57° 7´ W. This position is recorded in the log book, which was written up from the scrap log book by the chief officer. The scrap log is destroyed. It is a position about 19 miles N. by E. of the position of theTitanicwhen she foundered, and is said to have been fixed by dead reckoning and verified by observations. I am satisfied that this position is not accurate. The master "twisted her head" to E. N. E. by the compass and she remained approximately stationary until 5.15 a. m. on the following morning. The ship was slowly swinging around to starboard during the night.
At about 11 p. m. a steamer's light was seen approaching from the eastward. The master went to Evans's room and asked what ships he had. The latter replied: "I think theTitanicis near us. I have got her." The master said: "You had better advise theTitanicwe are stopped and surrounded with ice." This Evans did, calling up theTitanicand sending: "We are stopped and surrounded by ice." TheTitanicreplied: "Keep out." TheTitanicwas in communication with Cape Race, which station was then sending messages to her. The reason why theTitanicanswered "keep out" was that her Marconi operator could not hear what Cape Race was saying, as from her proximity the message from theCalifornianwas much stronger than any message being taken in by theTitanicfrom Cape Race, which was much farther off. Evans heard theTitaniccontinuing to communicate with Cape Race up to the time he turned in at 11.30 p. m.
The master of theCalifornianstates that when observing the approaching steamer as she got nearer he saw more lights, a few deck lights, and also her green side light. He considered that at 11 o'clock she was approximately 6 or 7 miles away, and at some time between 11 and 11.30 he first saw her green light; she was then about 5 miles off. He noticed that about 11.30 she stopped. In his opinion this steamer was of about the same size as theCalifornian—a medium-sized steamer, "something like ourselves."
From the evidence of Mr. Groves, third officer of theCalifornian, who was the officer of the first watch, it would appear that the master was not actually on the bridge when the steamer was sighted.
Mr. Groves made out two masthead lights; the steamer was changing her bearing slowly as she got closer, and as she approached he went to the chart room and reported this to the master; he added, "She is evidently a passenger steamer." In fact, Mr. Groves never appears to have had any doubt on this subject. In answer to a question during his examination, "Had she much light?" he said, "Yes, a lot of light. There was absolutely no doubt of her being a passenger steamer, at least in my mind."
Gill, the assistant donkey man of theCalifornian, who was on deck at midnight, said, referring to this steamer: "It could not have been anything but a passenger boat, she was too large."
By the evidence of Mr. Groves, the master, in reply to his report, said: "Call her up on the Morse lamp, and see if you can get any answer." This he proceeded to do. The master came up and joined him on the bridge and remarked: "That does not look like a passenger steamer." Mr. Groves replied: "It is, sir. When she stopped her lights seemed to go out, and I suppose they have been put out for the night." Mr. Groves states that these lights went out at 11.40, and remembers that time because "one bell was struck to call the middle watch." The master did not join him on the bridge until shortly afterwards, and consequently after the steamer had stopped.
In his examination Mr. Groves admitted that if this steamer's head was turning to port after she stopped, it might account for the diminution of lights, by many of them being shut out. Her steaming lights were still visible and also her port side light.
The captain only remained upon the bridge for a few minutes. In his evidence he stated that Mr. Groves had made no observations tohim about the steamer's deck lights going out. Mr. Groves's Morse signaling appears to have been ineffectual (although at one moment he thought he was being answered), and he gave it up. He remained on the bridge until relieved by Mr. Stone, the second officer, just after midnight. In turning theCalifornianover to him, he pointed out the steamer and said: "she has been stopped since 11.40; she is a passenger steamer. At about the moment she stopped she put her lights out." When Mr. Groves was in the witness box the following questions were put to him by me:
Speaking as an experienced seaman and knowing what you do know now, do you think that steamer that you know was throwing up rockets, and that you say was a passenger steamer, was theTitanic?—Do I think it? Yes. From what I have heard subsequently? Yes. Most decidedly I do, but I do not put myself as being an experienced man. But that is your opinion as far as your experience goes?—Yes, it is, my lord.
Speaking as an experienced seaman and knowing what you do know now, do you think that steamer that you know was throwing up rockets, and that you say was a passenger steamer, was theTitanic?—Do I think it? Yes. From what I have heard subsequently? Yes. Most decidedly I do, but I do not put myself as being an experienced man. But that is your opinion as far as your experience goes?—Yes, it is, my lord.
Mr. Stone states that the master, who was also up (but apparently not on the bridge), pointed out the steamer to him with instructions to tell him if her bearings altered or if she got any closer; he also stated that Mr. Groves had called her up on the Morse lamp and had received no reply.
Mr. Stone had with him during the middle watch an apprentice named Gibson, whose attention was first drawn to the steamer's lights at about 12.20 a. m. He could see a masthead light, her red light (with glasses), and a "glare of white lights on her afterdeck." He first thought her masthead light was flickering and next thought it was a Morse light, "calling us up." He replied, but could not get into communication, and finally came to the conclusion that it was, as he had first supposed, the masthead light flickering. Sometime after 12.30 a. m., Gill, the donkey man, states that he saw two rockets fired from the ship which he had been observing, and about 1.10 a. m., Mr. Stone reported to the captain by voice pipe, that he had seen five white rockets from the direction of the steamer. He states that the master answered, "Are they company's signals?" and that he replied, "I do not know, but they appear to me to be white rockets." The master told him to "go on Morsing," and, when he received any information, to send the apprentice down to him with it. Gibson states that Mr. Stone informed him that he had reported to the master, and that the master had said the steamer was to be called up by Morse light. This witness thinks the time was 12.55; he at once proceeded again to call the steamer up by Morse. He got no reply, but the vessel fired three more white rockets; these rockets were also seen by Mr. Stone.
Both Mr. Stone and the apprentice kept the steamer under observation, looking at her from time to time with their glasses. Between 1 o'clock and 1.40 some conversation passed between them. Mr. Stone remarked to Gibson: "Look at her now, she looks very queer out of water, her lights look queer." He also is said by Gibson to have remarked, "A ship is not going to fire rockets at sea for nothing;" and admits himself that he may possibly have used that expression.
Mr. Stone states that he saw the last of the rockets fired at about 1.40, and after watching the steamer for some 20 minutes more he sent Gibson down to the master.
I told Gibson to go down to the master, and be sure and wake him, and tell him that altogether we had seen eight of these white lights like white rockets in the directionof this other steamer; that this steamer was disappearing in the southwest, that we had called her up repeatedly on the Morse lamp and received no information whatsoever.
I told Gibson to go down to the master, and be sure and wake him, and tell him that altogether we had seen eight of these white lights like white rockets in the directionof this other steamer; that this steamer was disappearing in the southwest, that we had called her up repeatedly on the Morse lamp and received no information whatsoever.
Gibson states that he went down to the chart room and told the master; that the master asked him if all the rockets were white, and also asked him the time. Gibson stated that at this time the master was awake. It was five minutes past two, and Gibson returned to the bridge to Mr. Stone and reported. They both continued to keep the ship under observation until she disappeared. Mr. Stone describes this as "A gradual disappearing of all her lights, which would be perfectly natural with a ship steaming away from us."
At about 2.40 a. m. Mr. Stone again called up the master by voice pipe and told him that the ship from which he had seen the rockets come had disappeared bearing SW. 1/2 W., the last he had seen of the light; and the master again asked him if he was certain there was no color in the lights. "I again assured him they were all white, just white rockets." There is considerable discrepancy between the evidence of Mr. Stone and that of the master. The latter states that he went to the voice pipe at about 1.15, but was told then of a white rocket (not five white rockets). Moreover, between 1.30 and 4.30, when he was called by the chief officer (Mr. Stewart), he had no recollection of anything being reported to him at all, although he remembered Gibson opening and closing the chart-room door.
Mr. Stewart relieved Mr. Stone at 4 a. m. The latter told him he had seen a ship 4 or 5 miles off when he went on deck at 12 o'clock, and at 1 o'clock he had seen some white rockets, and that the moment the ship started firing them she started to steam away. Just at this time (about 4 a. m.) a steamer came in sight with two white masthead lights and a few lights amidships. He asked Mr. Stone whether he thought this was the steamer which had fired rockets, and Mr. Stone said he did not think it was. At 4.30 he called the master and informed him that Mr. Stone had told him he had seen rockets in the middle watch. The master said, "Yes, I know; he has been telling me." The master came at once on to the bridge, and apparently took the fresh steamer for the one which had fired rockets, and said, "She looks all right; she is not making any signals now." This mistake was not corrected. He, however, had the wireless operator called.
At about 6 a. m. Capt. Lord heard from theVirginianthat the "Titanichad struck a berg, passengers in boats, ship sinking;" and he at once started through the field ice at full speed for the position given.
Capt. Lord stated that about 7.30 a. m. he passed theMount Temple, stopped, and that she was in the vicinity of the position given him as where theTitanichad collided (lat. 41° 46´ N.; long. 50° 14´ W.). He saw no wreckage there, but did later on near theCarpathia, which ship he closed soon afterwards, and he stated that the position where he subsequently left this wreckage was 41° 33´ N.; 50° 1´ W. It is said in the evidence of Mr. Stewart that the position of theCalifornianwas verified by stellar observations at 7.30 p. m. on the Sunday evening, and that he verified the captain's position given when the ship stopped (42° 5´ N.; 50° 7´ W.) as accurate on the next day. The position in which the wreckage was said to have been seen on the Monday morning was verified by sights taken on that morning.
All the officers are stated to have taken sights, and Mr. Stewart in his evidence remarks that they all agreed. If it is admitted that these positions were correct, then it follows that theTitanic's position as given by that ship when making the CQD. signal was approximately S. 16° W. (true), 19 miles from theCalifornian; and further that the position in which theCalifornianwas stopped during the night, was 30 miles away from where the wreckage was seen by her in the morning, or that the wreckage had drifted 11 miles in a little more than five hours.
There are contradictions and inconsistencies in the story as told by the different witnesses. But the truth of the matter is plain. TheTitaniccollided with the berg at 11.40. The vessel seen by theCalifornianstopped at this time. The rockets sent up from theTitanicwere distress signals. TheCaliforniansaw distress signals. The number sent up by theTitanicwas about eight. TheCaliforniansaw eight. The time over which the rockets from theTitanicwere sent up was from about 12.45 to 1.45 o'clock. It was about this time that theCaliforniansaw the rockets. At 2.40 Mr. Stone called to the master that the ship from which he had seen the rockets had disappeared. At 2.20 a. m. theTitanichad foundered. It was suggested that the rockets seen by theCalifornianwere from some other ship, not theTitanic. But no other ship to fit this theory has ever been heard of.
These circumstances convince me that the ship seen by theCalifornianwas theTitanic, and if so, according to Capt. Lord, the two vessels were about 5 miles apart at the time of the disaster. The evidence from theTitaniccorroborates this estimate, but I am advised that the distance was probably greater, though not more than 8 to 10 miles. The ice by which theCalifornianwas surrounded was loose ice extending for a distance of not more than 2 or 3 miles in the direction of theTitanic. The night was clear and the sea was smooth. When she first saw the rockets, theCaliforniancould have pushed through the ice to the open water without any serious risk and so have come to the assistance of theTitanic. Had she done so she might have saved many if not all of the lives that were lost.
The court was invited by the board of trade—
"to report upon the rules and regulations made under the merchant shipping acts, 1894-1906, and the administration of those acts, and of such rules and regulations so far as the consideration thereof is material to this casualty" (No. 26 of the questions submitted to the court by the board of trade).
"to report upon the rules and regulations made under the merchant shipping acts, 1894-1906, and the administration of those acts, and of such rules and regulations so far as the consideration thereof is material to this casualty" (No. 26 of the questions submitted to the court by the board of trade).
Charges were made against the board of trade during the progress of the inquiry of a twofold kind. First, it was said that the board had been negligent in that they had failed to keep up to date their rules and regulations relating generally to the provision of life-saving appliances at sea, and, secondly, it was said that their officials had in the particular instance of theTitanicfailed to exercise due care in the supervision of the vessel's plans and the inspection of the work done upon her.
With reference to the first of these charges, it was reduced in the course of the inquiry to a charge of neglect to keep the board's scale for the provision of lifeboat accommodation up to date. The circumstances are these: In March, 1886, the board appointed a departmentalcommittee, consisting of three of their principal officers, to inquire into the question of boats, rafts, and life-saving apparatus carried by sea-going merchant ships. In their report this committee pointed out that, as regards boats for ocean-going steamers carrying large numbers of passengers, the boats would be of little use in saving life (although they might for a time prolong its existence) unless succor were at hand from other ships or from proximity to shore; and speaking with special reference to passenger steam vessels carrying emigrants across the Atlantic to ports on the east coast of North America, they said as follows:
Considering the number of vessels employed in this trade, and the large number of passengers they carry, and also taking into consideration the stormy character of the ocean they have to cross, and the thick and foggy weather encountered, we think this class is the most important of any, and we can not pass over the fact that of late years this traffic has been carried on with remarkable immunity from loss of life.The boat accommodation these vessels are forced to carry when sailing with emigrants is regulated by the scale in the passengers act, 1855, which provides for boat accommodation for 216 people as a maximum, so that, supposing a vessel leaves with 1,000 passengers and 200 crew under the present statutory requirements, she need only carry sufficient boat accommodation for 216 of these people. Thus it will be seen that the boats carried by this class of vessels are also quite inadequate as an effectual means of saving life should a disaster happen to a ship with her full complement of passengers on board. We are glad to be able to say that there are many liberal and careful shipowners who do all in their power to provide for the safety of their passengers by equipping their vessels with boats far in excess of the number required by statute. But, at the same time, there are others carrying large numbers of emigrants who do no more than they are required to do by law.We have gone into this question with reference to this class of vessels very fully, and have visited many of them, and we think that the boats required by act should be increased 100 per cent., and in addition to them that the owners should be induced to carry sufficient collapsible boats and approved rafts, so that each ship shall have sufficient life-saving gear for all on board at any one time, provided, as said before, that no ship need carry more boat accommodation than is sufficient for all on board at that time.
Considering the number of vessels employed in this trade, and the large number of passengers they carry, and also taking into consideration the stormy character of the ocean they have to cross, and the thick and foggy weather encountered, we think this class is the most important of any, and we can not pass over the fact that of late years this traffic has been carried on with remarkable immunity from loss of life.
The boat accommodation these vessels are forced to carry when sailing with emigrants is regulated by the scale in the passengers act, 1855, which provides for boat accommodation for 216 people as a maximum, so that, supposing a vessel leaves with 1,000 passengers and 200 crew under the present statutory requirements, she need only carry sufficient boat accommodation for 216 of these people. Thus it will be seen that the boats carried by this class of vessels are also quite inadequate as an effectual means of saving life should a disaster happen to a ship with her full complement of passengers on board. We are glad to be able to say that there are many liberal and careful shipowners who do all in their power to provide for the safety of their passengers by equipping their vessels with boats far in excess of the number required by statute. But, at the same time, there are others carrying large numbers of emigrants who do no more than they are required to do by law.
We have gone into this question with reference to this class of vessels very fully, and have visited many of them, and we think that the boats required by act should be increased 100 per cent., and in addition to them that the owners should be induced to carry sufficient collapsible boats and approved rafts, so that each ship shall have sufficient life-saving gear for all on board at any one time, provided, as said before, that no ship need carry more boat accommodation than is sufficient for all on board at that time.
In 1887 a select committee of the House of Commons, of which Lord Charles Beresford was the chairman, was appointed to report on saving life at sea, and they found in their report—
That many passenger ships could not, without great inconvenience, carry so many of the ordinary wooden boats as would suffice to carry the whole of the passengers and crew with safety in bad weather. Under such circumstances the crew would not be sufficient to man so many boats; nor could they all be got into the water in sufficient time in the event of very rapid foundering. Having regard, however, to the fact that accidents occur probably as often in moderate weather as in bad, and having regard also to the fact that the very cause of the accident frequently incapacitates many of the boats, and to the further fact that an insufficiency of boats undoubtedly tends to cause panic, we are of opinion that all sea-going passenger ships should be compelled by law to carry such boats, and other life-saving apparatus, as would in the aggregate best provide for the safety of all on board in moderate weather.
That many passenger ships could not, without great inconvenience, carry so many of the ordinary wooden boats as would suffice to carry the whole of the passengers and crew with safety in bad weather. Under such circumstances the crew would not be sufficient to man so many boats; nor could they all be got into the water in sufficient time in the event of very rapid foundering. Having regard, however, to the fact that accidents occur probably as often in moderate weather as in bad, and having regard also to the fact that the very cause of the accident frequently incapacitates many of the boats, and to the further fact that an insufficiency of boats undoubtedly tends to cause panic, we are of opinion that all sea-going passenger ships should be compelled by law to carry such boats, and other life-saving apparatus, as would in the aggregate best provide for the safety of all on board in moderate weather.
As a result of these reports, the merchant shipping (life-saving appliances) act, 1888, appears to have been passed, under which rules were made by the board of trade at different dates. The merchant shipping act, 1894, repealed the act of 1888, and substituted therefor sections 427 to 431 and the seventeenth schedule of the new act. Under this act (1894) a table showing the minimum number of boats to be placed under davits and their minimum cubic contents was issued by the board. It was dated March 9, 1894, and came into operation on June 1 of that year. This table was based on the gross tonnage of the vessels to which it was to apply, and not upon the numbers carried, and it provided that the number of boats and their capacity should increase as the tonnage increased. The table,however, stopped short at the point where the gross tonnage of the vessels reached "10,000 and upwards." As to all such vessels, whatever their size might be, the minimum number of boats under davits was fixed by the table at 16, with a total minimum capacity of 5,500 cubic feet.
But as regarded emigrant steamships there was a rule which provided that if the boats under davits required by the table did not furnish sufficient accommodation for all on board, then additional boats of approved description (whether under davits or not) or approved life rafts should be carried, and that these additional boats or rafts should be of at least such carrying capacity that they and the boats required by the table should provide together in vessels of 5,000 tons and upwards three-fourths more than the minimum cubic contents required by the table, so that in the case of an emigrant ship such as theTitanicthe requirements under the rules and table together exacted a provision of 9,625 cubic feet of lifeboat and raft accommodation (5,500 feet in boats under davits with three-fourths, namely, 4,125, added). Taken at 10 cubic feet per person, this would be equivalent to a provision for 962 persons. No doubt at the time these rules were made and this table was drawn up it was thought that, having regard to the size of vessels then built and building, it was unnecessary to carry the table further. The largest emigrant steamer then afloat was theLucania, of 12,952 tons.
In the report of the select committee of the House of Commons a reference to water-tight bulkheads had been made, which was in the following terms:
Though the question of construction was clearly not included in the reference to the committee, still they think it only right to state, after having heard the evidence, that the proper placing of bulkheads, so as to enable a ship to keep afloat for some length of time after an accident has occurred, is most important for saving life at sea, and a thing upon which the full efficiency of life-saving appliances largely depends.
Though the question of construction was clearly not included in the reference to the committee, still they think it only right to state, after having heard the evidence, that the proper placing of bulkheads, so as to enable a ship to keep afloat for some length of time after an accident has occurred, is most important for saving life at sea, and a thing upon which the full efficiency of life-saving appliances largely depends.
This passage probably explains the insertion in the board of trade's rules for life-saving appliances of rule No. 12, which is as follows:
Water-tight compartments.—When ships of any class are divided into efficient water-tight compartments to the satisfaction of the board of trade, they shall only be required to carry additional boats, rafts and buoyant apparatus of one-half of the capacity required by these rules, but the exemption shall not extend to life jackets or similar approved articles of equal buoyancy suitable to be worn on the person.
Water-tight compartments.—When ships of any class are divided into efficient water-tight compartments to the satisfaction of the board of trade, they shall only be required to carry additional boats, rafts and buoyant apparatus of one-half of the capacity required by these rules, but the exemption shall not extend to life jackets or similar approved articles of equal buoyancy suitable to be worn on the person.
If this rule had become applicable to theTitanic, then the total cubical lifeboat or raft accommodation which she would have been required to carry would not have been more than 7,562 (equivalent to accommodation for 756 persons). It did not, however, become applicable for the owners never required the board of trade to express any opinion under the rule as to the efficiency of the water-tight compartments. TheTitanic, in fact, carried boat accommodation for 1,178 persons, a number far in excess of the requirements of the table and rules, and therefore no concession under rule 12 was needed. Speaking generally, recourse to this rule (12) by shipowners has been so insignificant that the rule itself may be regarded as of no practical account.
The foregoing rules with the table were laid before Parliament in the usual way, and so received the required statutory sanction.
After 1894 steamers were built of a much larger tonnage than 10,000, the increase culminating in theTitanic, with a gross tonnage of 46,328. As the vessels built increased in size, one would havethought the necessity for increased lifeboat accommodation would grow; but the rules and table remained stationary and nothing was done to them by way of change. The explanation of this long delay (from 1894-1912) was given before me by Sir Alfred Chalmers, who had served under the board of trade as nautical adviser from 1896 to August, 1911. He is now retired. I think it will be well if I give his explanation in his own words. He says:
I considered the matter very closely from time to time. I first of all considered the record of the trade—that is to say, the record of the casualties—and to see what immunity from loss there was. I found it was the safest mode of travel in the world, and I thought it was neither right nor the duty of a state department to impose regulations upon that mode of travel as long as the record was a clean one. Secondly, I found that as ships grew bigger there were such improvements made in their construction that they were stronger and better ships, both from the point of view of water-tight compartments and also absolute strength, and I considered that that was the road along which the shipowners were going to travel, and that they should not be interfered with. I then went to the maximum that is down in the table, 16 boats and upward, together with the supplementary boats, and I considered from my experience that that was the maximum number that could be rapidly dealt with at sea and that could be safely housed without incumbering the vessel's decks unduly. In the next place I considered that the traffic was very safe on account of the routes, the definite routes being agreed upon by the different companies, which tended to lessen the risk of collision and to avoid ice and fog. Then again, there was the question of wireless telegraphy, which had already come into force on board of these passenger ships. I was seized of the fact that in July, 1901, theLucaniahad been fitted with wireless telegraphy, and the Cunard Line generally fitted it during that year to all their ships. The Allan Line fitted it in 1902, and I am not sure that in 1904 it had not become quite general on the trans-Atlantic ships. That, of course, entered into my consideration as well. Then another point was the manning. It was quite evident to me that if you went on crowding the ships with boats you would require a crew which were not required otherwise for the safe navigation of the ship, or for the proper upkeep of the ship, but you are providing a crew which would be carried uselessly across the ocean, that never would be required to man the boats. Then the last point, and not the least, was this, that the voluntary action of the owners was carrying them beyond the requirements of our scale, and when voluntary action on the part of shipowners is doing that, I think that any state department should hold its hand before it steps in to make a hard and fast scale for that particular type of shipping. I considered that that scale fitted all sizes of ships that were then afloat, and I did not consider it necessary to increase it, and that was my advice to Sir Walter Howell.
I considered the matter very closely from time to time. I first of all considered the record of the trade—that is to say, the record of the casualties—and to see what immunity from loss there was. I found it was the safest mode of travel in the world, and I thought it was neither right nor the duty of a state department to impose regulations upon that mode of travel as long as the record was a clean one. Secondly, I found that as ships grew bigger there were such improvements made in their construction that they were stronger and better ships, both from the point of view of water-tight compartments and also absolute strength, and I considered that that was the road along which the shipowners were going to travel, and that they should not be interfered with. I then went to the maximum that is down in the table, 16 boats and upward, together with the supplementary boats, and I considered from my experience that that was the maximum number that could be rapidly dealt with at sea and that could be safely housed without incumbering the vessel's decks unduly. In the next place I considered that the traffic was very safe on account of the routes, the definite routes being agreed upon by the different companies, which tended to lessen the risk of collision and to avoid ice and fog. Then again, there was the question of wireless telegraphy, which had already come into force on board of these passenger ships. I was seized of the fact that in July, 1901, theLucaniahad been fitted with wireless telegraphy, and the Cunard Line generally fitted it during that year to all their ships. The Allan Line fitted it in 1902, and I am not sure that in 1904 it had not become quite general on the trans-Atlantic ships. That, of course, entered into my consideration as well. Then another point was the manning. It was quite evident to me that if you went on crowding the ships with boats you would require a crew which were not required otherwise for the safe navigation of the ship, or for the proper upkeep of the ship, but you are providing a crew which would be carried uselessly across the ocean, that never would be required to man the boats. Then the last point, and not the least, was this, that the voluntary action of the owners was carrying them beyond the requirements of our scale, and when voluntary action on the part of shipowners is doing that, I think that any state department should hold its hand before it steps in to make a hard and fast scale for that particular type of shipping. I considered that that scale fitted all sizes of ships that were then afloat, and I did not consider it necessary to increase it, and that was my advice to Sir Walter Howell.
I appreciate this explanation, and I think there is much force in it. At the same time, it seems to me that it does not justify the delay. Even taking all these matters into consideration, it can not be that the provision for boat accommodation made in 1894 for vessels of 10,000 tons and upward remained sufficient to 1910, when vessels of 45,000 tons were being built. Two considerations demonstrate this. The first is that some shipowners recognized the insufficiency of the requirements of the board of trade, and voluntarily exceeded those requirements by providing larger boat accommodation than the old rules and table exacted. The second is that shortly before Sir Alfred Chalmers left the board of trade, the board had begun to direct attention to the amending of their rules in this connection.
It appears that in November, 1910, a question was asked in the House of Commons as to whether the attention of the president of the board of trade had been called to the fact that theOlympic, a sister ship of theTitanic, was provided with 14 lifeboats only. The answer given was that theOlympic(which was then in course of construction) would carry 14 lifeboats and two ordinary boats of an aggregate capacity of 9,752 cubic feet, which was in excess of the requirements of the statutory rules. On February 15, 1911, afurther question was asked as to the date of the last regulations, and whether, having regard to the increased tonnage of modern ships, the desirability of revising the regulations would be considered by the board of trade. The answer by the president was:
Those regulations were last revised in 1894. The question of their further revision is engaging the serious attention of the board of trade, and I have decided to refer the matter to the merchant shipping advisory committee for consideration and advice.
Those regulations were last revised in 1894. The question of their further revision is engaging the serious attention of the board of trade, and I have decided to refer the matter to the merchant shipping advisory committee for consideration and advice.
Three days afterwards, namely, on February 18, 1911, a circular letter was sent out by the board of trade to the board's principal officers at Liverpool, London, and Glasgow asking each of those gentlemen to draft such an extension of the existing boat scale as he might think satisfactory and reasonable for the conditions of large passenger steamers. This circular letter was answered by the principal officer in Glasgow (Mr. Harris) on February 24, 1911, by the principal officer in London (Mr. Park) on February 27, 1911, and by the principal officer in Liverpool (Mr. Young) on March 3, 1911. It is sufficient to say of these answers that they all suggested a large extension of the statutory requirements.
Meanwhile, namely, on February 28, 1911, Mr. Archer, the board of trade's principal ship surveyor, had also drawn up a scale. This was a more exacting scale than that of any of the three principal officers. By his scale a vessel of the tonnage of theTitanicwould have had to carry boat accommodation equivalent to at least 24,937 cubic feet, which would have been sufficient to hold all and more than all the persons who were on board at the time of the disaster (2,201). It would not, however, have been nearly sufficient to have held all that the vessel might lawfully have carried, viz, 3,547, and it is to be observed with reference to Mr. Archer's scale that in it he suggests an extension of rule 12, by which (if the vessel were divided into efficient water-tight compartments) the total boat accommodation might be reduced much more than rule 12 as it stands would permit. If this reduction be taken into account, the boat accommodation would fall so that it would be sufficient only for 1,750 persons. Mr. Archer's view was that shipowners should be encouraged to increase the floatability of the ships they built, and that the way to encourage them was to relax the legal requirements as to boats as their plans advanced in that direction. The great object was so to build the ship that in the event of a disaster she would be her own lifeboat.[4]
Having obtained these four reports, the board of trade, on April 4, 1911, submitted the matter to their advisory committee, and obtained the committee's report on July 4, 1911. The following are copies (with omissions of immaterial passages) of the board of trade's letter of April 4, 1911, and of the advisory committee's report of July 4, 1911:
Board of Trade, Marine Department,7 Whitehall Gardens,London, SW., April 4, 1911.SIR: I am directed by the board of trade to inclose herewith, for the information of the merchant shipping advisory committee, a copy of a question asked in the House of Commons on February 15 and of the answer given by the president of the board of trade with reference to the life-saving appliances rules made under section 427 of the merchant shipping act, 1894.The board are of opinion that the table in the appendix to the rules should be extended upward in the form indicated in the accompanying scale, so as to provide for vessels of tonnage up to 50,000 tons gross and upward.It appears to the board that the number of boats and the boat capacity need not necessarily increase in a regular proportion according to the increase in tonnage, and that due regard should be paid to what is reasonable and practicable in passenger steamers exceeding 10,000 tons. * * *I am to state that the board would be obliged if the merchant shipping advisory committee would be so good as to suggest in what manner the scale (see accompanying copy) should be continued upward, having due regard to the considerations indicated above.I am further to state that the board would be glad to learn whether the advisory committee are of opinion that rule 12 should or should not be revised so as to exempt altogether from the requirement of additional boats or rafts those vessels which are divided into efficient water-tight compartments to the satisfaction of the board of trade. * * *I am, etc.,WALTERJ. HOWELL.The SECRETARY,Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee
Board of Trade, Marine Department,7 Whitehall Gardens,London, SW., April 4, 1911.
SIR: I am directed by the board of trade to inclose herewith, for the information of the merchant shipping advisory committee, a copy of a question asked in the House of Commons on February 15 and of the answer given by the president of the board of trade with reference to the life-saving appliances rules made under section 427 of the merchant shipping act, 1894.
The board are of opinion that the table in the appendix to the rules should be extended upward in the form indicated in the accompanying scale, so as to provide for vessels of tonnage up to 50,000 tons gross and upward.
It appears to the board that the number of boats and the boat capacity need not necessarily increase in a regular proportion according to the increase in tonnage, and that due regard should be paid to what is reasonable and practicable in passenger steamers exceeding 10,000 tons. * * *
I am to state that the board would be obliged if the merchant shipping advisory committee would be so good as to suggest in what manner the scale (see accompanying copy) should be continued upward, having due regard to the considerations indicated above.
I am further to state that the board would be glad to learn whether the advisory committee are of opinion that rule 12 should or should not be revised so as to exempt altogether from the requirement of additional boats or rafts those vessels which are divided into efficient water-tight compartments to the satisfaction of the board of trade. * * *
I am, etc.,WALTERJ. HOWELL.
The SECRETARY,Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee
Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee,July 4, 1911.SIR: We have the honor to report that your letter of April 4 with reference to the minimum number of lifeboats to be earned on vessels of 10,000 tons gross tonnage and upward, and your letter of May 17 on the subject of the depth of lifeboats, have been very carefully considered by the merchant shipping advisory committee and that it was unanimously decided at a meeting held on the 29th ultimo to adopt the report of a subcommittee which was specially appointed to inquire into these questions.A copy of the report is accordingly forwarded herewith, and the committee desire us to suggest for the consideration of the board of trade that effect should be given to the recommendations contained in it.We are, etc.,NORMANHILL,Chairman.R. W. MATTHEW,Secretary.SIRWALTERJ. HOWELL,Assistant Secretary Marine Department, Board of Trade.
Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee,July 4, 1911.
SIR: We have the honor to report that your letter of April 4 with reference to the minimum number of lifeboats to be earned on vessels of 10,000 tons gross tonnage and upward, and your letter of May 17 on the subject of the depth of lifeboats, have been very carefully considered by the merchant shipping advisory committee and that it was unanimously decided at a meeting held on the 29th ultimo to adopt the report of a subcommittee which was specially appointed to inquire into these questions.
A copy of the report is accordingly forwarded herewith, and the committee desire us to suggest for the consideration of the board of trade that effect should be given to the recommendations contained in it.
We are, etc.,
NORMANHILL,Chairman.R. W. MATTHEW,Secretary.
NORMANHILL,Chairman.R. W. MATTHEW,Secretary.
SIRWALTERJ. HOWELL,Assistant Secretary Marine Department, Board of Trade.
REPORT OF THE LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES SUBCOMMITTEE TO THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ADVISORY COMMITTEE.In accordance with the decision of the merchant shipping advisory committee, at their meeting on Friday, April 28, we have given careful consideration to the latter of April 4 from the board of trade, in which the committee were asked to advise: (1) As to the manner in which the table in the appendix to the Life-Saving Appliances Rules should be extended so as to provide for vessels of tonnage up to 50,000 tons gross and upward; and (2) as to whether rule 12 should or should not be revised so as to exempt altogether from the requirement of additional boats and (or) rafts, those vessels which are divided into efficient water-tight compartments to the satisfaction of the board of trade.In considering these questions, we have had specially in mind the fact that the number of passengers carried does not necessarily increase in proportion to the increase in the tonnage of the vessel. This is particularly true in the case of vessels exceeding 10,000 tons, a type of vessel which is practically only built to provide special accommodation for large numbers of first and second class passengers.Similarly there is no fixed relation between the tonnage of vessels and the deck space available for the carrying of lifeboats under davits. Increase in the length of a vessel is only one of the factors, and often not the most material factor contributing to the increase in its tonnage, and it should also be remembered, in estimating the space available for the launching of lifeboats, that it is impossible to place davits forward of the bridge, and very undesirable to have them on the quarters of the vessel.We are strongly of opinion that every encouragement should be given to secure the provision of vessels which by their construction have been rendered as unsinkable aspossible, and which are provided with efficient means for communicating with the shore or with other vessels in case of disaster.In view of these considerations, we have agreed upon the following recommendations:1. That it is questionable whether it is practicable to increase the number of davits.2. That any increase in the number of lifeboats to be carried can probably be best effected by providing for the launching of further boats from the existing davits.3. That the table should be extended in the manner indicated below, viz.:Gross tonnage.Minimumnumber ofboats to beplaced underdavits.Minimumnumber ofadditionalboats to bereadilyavailablefor attachmentto davits.Total minimumcubiccontents ofboats requiredbycolumns2 and 3.Cubic feet.10,000 and under 12,00016——,50012,000 and under 20,0001626,20020,000 and under 35,0001646,90035,000 and under 45,0001667,60045,000 and upward1688,300It is further recommended that all passenger vessels of 10,000 tons gross tonnage and upward should be required to be fitted with wireless telegraphy apparatus.4. That the rules should be amended so as to admit of decked lifeboats of an approved type being stowed on top of one another or under an open lifeboat, subject to suitable arrangements being made for launching promptly the boats so stowed.5. That the additional boats and rafts required under the provisions of Division A, class 1(d) of the Life-Saving Appliances Rules shall be of at least such carrying capacity that they, and the boats required by columns 2 and 3 of the above table, provide together three-fourths more than the minimum cubic contents required by column 4 of that table.6. That vessels divided into efficient water-tight compartments to the satisfaction of the board of trade should (provided they are fitted with wireless telegraphy apparatus) be exempt from the requirement of additional boats and (or) rafts. The committee suggest, in this connection, that the board of trade should review the requirements designed to attain the standards as to water-tight compartments at present enforced by them under rule 12, having regard to the developments of shipbuilding since the report of the committee on the spacing and construction of water-tight bulkheads.We have also had before us the board's further letter of May 17 inquiring whether, in the opinion of the advisory committee, it would be advisable to prescribe a maximum depth for lifeboats as compared with their breadth, and, if so, what that proportion should be.In connection with this letter we have been supplied by the board of trade with reports from their principal officers in Great Britain, giving the dimensions and cubic capacities of the various kinds of boats on five typical ships in each of eight ports.We recommend that the board should be advised to alter the Life-Saving Appliances Rules so as to provide that, in future, the depth of lifeboats supplied to a British merchant vessel shall not exceed 44 per cent. of their breadth.NORMANHILL.S. CROSS.GEO. N. HAMPSON.T. ROYDEN.THOMASSPENCER.A. M. CARLISLE.WM. THEODOREDOXFORD.ROBERTA. OGILVIE.T. ROME.J. HAVELOCKWILSON.
REPORT OF THE LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES SUBCOMMITTEE TO THE MERCHANT SHIPPING ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
In accordance with the decision of the merchant shipping advisory committee, at their meeting on Friday, April 28, we have given careful consideration to the latter of April 4 from the board of trade, in which the committee were asked to advise: (1) As to the manner in which the table in the appendix to the Life-Saving Appliances Rules should be extended so as to provide for vessels of tonnage up to 50,000 tons gross and upward; and (2) as to whether rule 12 should or should not be revised so as to exempt altogether from the requirement of additional boats and (or) rafts, those vessels which are divided into efficient water-tight compartments to the satisfaction of the board of trade.
In considering these questions, we have had specially in mind the fact that the number of passengers carried does not necessarily increase in proportion to the increase in the tonnage of the vessel. This is particularly true in the case of vessels exceeding 10,000 tons, a type of vessel which is practically only built to provide special accommodation for large numbers of first and second class passengers.
Similarly there is no fixed relation between the tonnage of vessels and the deck space available for the carrying of lifeboats under davits. Increase in the length of a vessel is only one of the factors, and often not the most material factor contributing to the increase in its tonnage, and it should also be remembered, in estimating the space available for the launching of lifeboats, that it is impossible to place davits forward of the bridge, and very undesirable to have them on the quarters of the vessel.
We are strongly of opinion that every encouragement should be given to secure the provision of vessels which by their construction have been rendered as unsinkable aspossible, and which are provided with efficient means for communicating with the shore or with other vessels in case of disaster.
In view of these considerations, we have agreed upon the following recommendations:
1. That it is questionable whether it is practicable to increase the number of davits.
2. That any increase in the number of lifeboats to be carried can probably be best effected by providing for the launching of further boats from the existing davits.
3. That the table should be extended in the manner indicated below, viz.:
It is further recommended that all passenger vessels of 10,000 tons gross tonnage and upward should be required to be fitted with wireless telegraphy apparatus.
4. That the rules should be amended so as to admit of decked lifeboats of an approved type being stowed on top of one another or under an open lifeboat, subject to suitable arrangements being made for launching promptly the boats so stowed.
5. That the additional boats and rafts required under the provisions of Division A, class 1(d) of the Life-Saving Appliances Rules shall be of at least such carrying capacity that they, and the boats required by columns 2 and 3 of the above table, provide together three-fourths more than the minimum cubic contents required by column 4 of that table.
6. That vessels divided into efficient water-tight compartments to the satisfaction of the board of trade should (provided they are fitted with wireless telegraphy apparatus) be exempt from the requirement of additional boats and (or) rafts. The committee suggest, in this connection, that the board of trade should review the requirements designed to attain the standards as to water-tight compartments at present enforced by them under rule 12, having regard to the developments of shipbuilding since the report of the committee on the spacing and construction of water-tight bulkheads.
We have also had before us the board's further letter of May 17 inquiring whether, in the opinion of the advisory committee, it would be advisable to prescribe a maximum depth for lifeboats as compared with their breadth, and, if so, what that proportion should be.
In connection with this letter we have been supplied by the board of trade with reports from their principal officers in Great Britain, giving the dimensions and cubic capacities of the various kinds of boats on five typical ships in each of eight ports.
We recommend that the board should be advised to alter the Life-Saving Appliances Rules so as to provide that, in future, the depth of lifeboats supplied to a British merchant vessel shall not exceed 44 per cent. of their breadth.
It will be observed that if effect had been given by the board of trade to the report of the advisory committee the requirements for a vessel of the size of theTitanicwould have reached 14,525 cubic feet (8,300 plus three-fourths of 8,300, namely, 6,225), with, however, this qualification that if the vessel were divided into efficient water-tight compartments (as she probably was) and fitted with wireless telegraphy (as she certainly was) a provision of a boatcapacity of 8,300 cubic feet, equivalent to space for 830 persons, would have been legally sufficient. This would have been much less than the accommodation with which theTitanicwhen she put to sea was, in fact, provided (namely, for 1,178 persons).
Effect, however, was not given to the report. A question arose with reference to the dimensions of lifeboats, and it was thought better to get that question settled before proceeding to revise the rules. The examination of this question involved making several experiments which caused delay; and it was not until April 16, 1912, that a reply was sent by the board of trade to the advisory committee. It will be noticed that the date of this reply is just after the disaster to theTitanicbecame known. I am, however, quite satisfied that instructions for the preparation of this letter had been given in the offices of the board of trade some days before the 16th, and that the letter was not sent in consequence of the disaster. It is desirable to set it out.