Overview
Captain Stanley Lord and his vessel, the Californian, were accused of ignoring the Titanic's distress calls. This book offers an evidence which prompted the British Government to re-open the case surrounding Captain Lord and the Californian and proved that the captain and his ship could not have been the ship seen from the decks of the Titanic.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780752467610 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | The History Press |
| Publication date: | 08/31/2011 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 272 |
| File size: | 4 MB |
| Age Range: | 12 Years |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
Titanic and the Californian
By Thomas B. Williams, Rob Kamps
The History Press
Copyright © 2011 Thomas B. Williams and revised by Rob KampsAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-7524-6761-0
CHAPTER 1
The Unsinkable Lifeboat
When one of the largest and most opulent liners the world has ever seen sinks with an appalling loss of life after colliding with an iceberg, some might call the tragedy an 'Act of God'. Others might say it was the direct result of irresponsible seamanship, coupled with defective manufacturing and a complete lack of foresight.
We shall not dwell too long on the events of the night and morning of 14/15 April 1912. Suffice it to say that we know that the pride of the White Star Line, RMS Titanic struck an iceberg in the North Atlantic while on her maiden voyage and subsequently sank with the loss of over 1,500 souls. Neither would it serve any useful purpose to re-hash the same old story all over again – that has been done far too often and far too inaccurately. Within these pages we are concerned with a tragedy of equal importance to the loss of the Titanic, the tragedy of Captain Stanley Lord. While both tragedies are inextricably linked, that of Captain Lord is one that has existed for far too long.
Thanks to modern technology we now know that the once sumptuous liner is lying in two main sections over two miles down on the floor of the Atlantic, with her expensive innards strewn across a wide expanse of the seabed, which also marks the resting place of over 1,000 men, women and children. At the outset, it is perhaps best to realise that, all things being equal, this magnificent ship should not have sunk. Her destruction was one of those 'one in a million' probabilities. Nevertheless it would be quite incorrect to say that the iceberg was solely responsible for the disaster. The iceberg, if anything, was but a contributing factor in the affair – a major factor, it must be admitted. There were of course many other contributing factors on that sorrowful night – the speed of the ship, the ignored warnings, the lack of any realistic lifeboat drill. Even the actual design of the ship itself contributed to her loss. It would be so easy to point the finger of blame at the Titanic's captain, Edward J. Smith, and say that he was negligent in the handling of his ship. He was later found to be guilty of recklessness. It must be pointed out that Captain Smith in fact did not quite do everything a captain should have done under the circumstances. However, it would also be both cruel and unfair to condemn a man who, losing his life as he did, was not in a position to defend his actions. The question of the captain's guilt or negligence must rest with the reader.
In order to ascertain the truth of the affair of the Titanic and the Californian involvement, it is necessary to take a long hard look at the cold facts surrounding the case. In order to do this in as fair a manner as possible, it is vital that we do not allow our emotions to become swayed by either sentiment or feelings of pity. In stripping the case of all its veneer and polish, we must accept several facts. Firstly, Captain Edward John Smith was the master of the Titanic and, as such, had a duty and moral responsibility to bring his ship safely to port and safeguard the lives and property of those under his care. This, for reasons which have become apparent, he failed to do. Secondly, he had obviously slipped into a state of shock when faced with the inescapable fact that his latest command, with the largest vessel in the world, was about to founder with terrific loss of life. He is reported to have done everything possible under the circumstances to protect the lives entrusted to his care when the end was a foregone conclusion. He continued to assist passengers and crew in the freezing water, eventually losing his own life. However, as a result of losing overall control, probably due to his mental state, he did fail to see that the lifeboats, already hopelessly insufficient in number, were filled to capacity. Several factors are major mitigating circumstances in Captain Smith's favour, and it would be totally wrong to condemn someone who was faced with such extreme conditions and his own impending death. It is therefore not the brief of this writer to stand in judgement of this unfortunate man.
The irony of the Titanic affair is such that if a certificate of seaworthiness were to be applied for in present-day standards, it would invariably be refused. The fact is, it should also have been refused in 1912. By virtue of the design of her bulkheads, which did not run high enough, the Titanic was in fact utterly unseaworthy and, despite the fact that the Board of Trade and the owners were fully aware of this, the ship was still allowed to be put to sea. Many reasons have been put forward for this decision, and while they may be construed as speculation, there is a ring of truth about them. Firstly, the White Star Line was loath to have any further delays and keen to put their magnificent new ship into competition with their archrival Cunard and, secondly, the British government was also anxious to show off its shipbuilding prowess to the world. It was also suggested that the owners were not keen on disappointing the rich passengers, who represented the cream of affluent society. Whatever the reasons, the Titanic sailed off on what was destined to be a voyage of disaster.
As we shall be referring frequently to both American and British investigations into the tragedy, as well as taking a look at other 'evidence' put forward by those who, for one reason or another, found it necessary to blame Captain Lord for the loss of 1,500 lives, we will also take a brief look at the code of law and define the word 'evidence'. It would be well to bear in mind that Captain Lord was never tried in any court of law. Neither was he officially charged with any crime. Lord merely appeared as a witness in the case and had very little legal representation to argue his plight. However, once the formal investigation had refused him an appeal, Lord's legal advisors found their hands effectively tied and there was little they could do to alter the decision of the court. The way, in effect, was closed to Captain Lord to attempt to clear his name. It was the Board of Trade which carried out the inquiry into the disaster, albeit a public inquiry, which, in effect, meant that the Board of Trade was actually investigating the Board of Trade. As they naturally already had questions at hand, it was but a simple job to suit the answers to them. This they did admirably. This rather suspicious action has been labelled as an effort to keep certain aristocratic noses clean and, to all intents and purposes, it worked quite well.
Although the Board of Trade was responsible, among other things, for the lack of sufficient lifeboats on the Titanic and, as we have seen, responsible for putting up the British inquiry, they were to state in the course of the investigation that if Captain Lord had come to the assistance of the Titanic, he might have been able to save 'most if not all of the lives which were lost'. Apparently it did not occur to them to say that if the Board of Trade had provided the ship with sufficient lifeboats, they might have saved many, if not all of the lives which were lost. This of course was a classic case of the 'reversed proof technique', and it worked out 100 per cent for the Board of Trade. Fortunately for them, the ship had sunk on an even keel. Had it listed heavily, only fifty per cent of the boats (ten) could have been used, increasing the death toll even more. Considering these pertinent points, it is hardly surprising that everyone connected with the affair came out of the inquiry unharmed, everyone except Stanley Lord.
Common Law
Common law denotes law which is the same for all members of society and is based on custom and usage as distinct from legislation. One of its maxims is that the king/state must recognise law which created the king/state. Common law is distinguished from statute law, which is enacted by Parliament and from civil law, which emphasises the power of the State.
Criminal Law
As distinct from law which deals with the private wrongs of individuals, (civil law), criminal law is concerned with acts which are contrary to peace, order and the well-being of society. It is an attempt by the State to preserve public order by making guilty persons liable to punishment in order to curb any tendency towards private vengeance. Criminal law recognises blameworthy intention as a necessary component to a criminal offence. Before a person can be convicted of a crime, two things have to be proved. Firstly, an act forbidden by criminal law has resulted from an individual's conduct and, secondly, this conduct was accompanied by blameworthy intention. Criminal law requires that both of these must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Evidence
Evidence consists of statements made by witnesses in court about criminal matters, and includes relevant documents and exhibits. The purpose of evidence is to prove or disprove particular matters relating to a crime to the satisfaction of a jury. Evidence falls into two categories (classes): direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence is provided by an eye-witness who has seen a crime committed. Circumstantial evidence involves relevant facts from which inferences may be drawn that a crime was committed – the operative word being 'fact', as opposed to hearsay, gossip, speculation or rumour. This is necessary to protect the interests of the accused person. Remember, a person is deemed to be innocent until 'proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt'. Consequently, certain forms of testimony are regarded as inadmissible. In court, the examination and cross-examination of witnesses forms the heart of the criminal trial. The witness relates what he saw or heard with his own senses. The judge ensures that the rules of evidence are maintained and directs the court as to the admissibility of any contentious testimony.
Captain Lord did not have the benefit of any of the foregoing. Neither was he tried under 'Section 6' of the Maritime Convention Act (1911), which carried the penalty of up to two years in prison, with or without hard labour.
In summing up this section, we see that Captain Lord, in effect, was not only castigated, but publicly condemned without benefit of trial. Not only was he thus condemned, but condemned on a charge which was never actually specified to him, and, by a tribunal before which he only appeared as a witness. To add to this obvious injustice, Lord was denied effective legal representation and opportunity to defend himself and present evidence on his own behalf, as was his democratic and constitutional right. To finally ensure that the captain would have no further grounds for charges of libel or slander, he was refused any legal fees or expenses and the right to appeal the findings of the inquiry. At one stage in the process, Captain Lord found it very difficult to raise the necessary fare to travel to London in connection with the case. This then was the 'justice' which prevailed in 1912, and, it must be said, has continued to prevail in Captain Lord's case ever since.
To give just a brief idea of the importance – or rather, lack of importance – which the Board of Trade and the marine department placed on the plight of Captain Lord, I append, verbatim, a brief letter from Sir Walter J. Howell, of the marine dept, to the president of the Board of Trade, Mr Buxton, on 18 August:
Dear Mr. Buxton,
In reply to your inquiry whether I think a copy of this letter from Captain Lord should be sent to Lord Mersey, I am of the opinion that it would be better not. Lord Mersey and his court have delivered their judgement and there is an end of the matter so far as they are concerned. I think if you communicate anything now, whether from Captain Lord or anyone else concerned, it might be misunderstood and would create a bad precedent.
I hope you are having fine weather and a real rest after your very busy time at the Board of Trade. I am having a delightful time here and am thoroughly enjoying it, but I hope you will not hesitate to write to, or send for, me, if I can be of any service to you.
I am, Yours very faithfully, Walter J. Howell
At the time the above letter was written, Captain Lord wrote on paper his own version of the events and sent it to the marine department asking that it be forwarded to Lord Mersey, who presided over the inquiry. The offhand manner in which his request was treated speaks multitudes. Was it a case of the 'fish being on the line' and the 'anglers' loath to lose him? In any event, the matter was left alone.
It would be unwise, and probably boring, to become bogged down in a whole lot of legal red tape and misguided bureaucracy which has surrounded this case for so long and would serve no useful purpose, other than confuse the reader. It will be much more profitable if the case is approachedwith a clear mind and an outlook unswayed by emotions. We shall therefore simply take the facts of the case as they present themselves, examine them, and arrive at a conclusion. To lay the groundwork for such an appraisal, it will be necessary to return to the Titanic itself and look at its construction.
It is necessary to forget for a moment all the hype which surrounded this massive floating palace and take a look instead at the nuts and bolts of the ship, as it were. There can be absolutely no doubt that Titanic was a beautiful ship and utterly deserving of all the praise which was heaped on her. She was indeed everything her owners claimed her to be. The 'unsinkable' myth came into the public arena as a result of a journalistic comment in the maritime press. Neither Harland & Wolff nor White Star ever made this claim. One of the major flaws in the construction of the Titanic, which was a main contributing factor to her loss, was the engine and boiler room bulkheads. Initially, these bulkheads were designed and installed in such a manner as to allow several compartments to be flooded without endangering the ship. Unfortunately, the bulkheads were not completely watertight in that they did not reach up to the upper decks (D deck and Saloon deck) as was originally planned by David Archer, the ship's principal surveyor. As the bulkheads stopped short of the overhead ceilings, there was a gap of several feet over which water could pour over in the event of a serious collision. This omission meant that as soon as water would reach the top of one bulkhead, it would immediately spill over into the next. This situation would continue, in domino fashion, until all the compartments were full of water. This of course was exactly what happened on the night of the tragedy and is verified by the fact that the Titanic went down by the head.
Although the ship was reputed for decades to have suffered a gash in her side, measuring about 300ft, naval architect Edward Wilding calculated in 1912 that the overall damage to her hull amounted to 12sq.ft. This was confirmed to be 12.60sq.ft based on a 1995 computer analysis during an expedition to the wreck site. However, if the ship had suffered a 300ft gash, it is probable that she would have actually turned turtle, as all of her lower compartments would have filled up much more rapidly. It is therefore much more likely that the ice only managed to penetrate some of the forward plates all the way through, and went on to merely tear and punch the outer skin on the Titanic for the remainder of the gash (Titanic actually had two hulls, one inside the other). This would be a logical assumption when we consider that the right forward section of the ship would have taken the main force of the impact – estimated at one million foot tons – and the side only a superficial or glancing blow as the momentum of the collision pushed the ship away from the iceberg. New insights into the ship's breakup have led to the tentative conclusion that her bottom suffered damage during the collision as well.
At the subsequent British investigation, Mr David Archer, in his testimony, confirmed that the bulkheads did not reach as high as originally intended. He stated that he 'accepted this condition' after being shown a builder's calculation that even if the first and second compartments, and the firemen's passage, were to be simultaneously flooded, the Titanic would only sink 2ft 6in. by the head. After Archer had done some calculations of his own, he came to the conclusion that if the ship were to be down 2ft 6in. by the head, the tops of the 'unfinished' bulkheads between the fourth and fifth watertight compartments would then be no less than 15ft 6in. above the waterline. On the basis of this theory – which may have been fine on paper – he reached the conclusion that to increase further the height of the bulkheads would be an exercise in futility. He therefore passed the ship as being fit for sea and duly issued his declaration of seaworthiness.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Titanic and the Californian by Thomas B. Williams, Rob Kamps. Copyright © 2011 Thomas B. Williams and revised by Rob Kamps. Excerpted by permission of The History Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Contents
Frontpiece,Title Page,
Dedication,
Acknowledgements,
Foreword,
Preface,
List of Illustrations and Letters,
Photographs,
Notes on Technical Terms,
ONE The Unsinkable Lifeboat,
TWO Aftermath and Accusations,
THREE The British Investigation,
FOUR Ships that Pass in the Night,
FIVE Rockets and Questions,
SIX Gibson, Gill and Groves,
SEVEN Stanley Lord: Man and Mariner,
EIGHT New and Important Evidence,
Appendices,
Bibliography,
About the Author,
Copyright,