Rocket Colours

[Michael H. Standart]

>>If I remember, Reade said the Californian had achieved 13-1/2 knots at its trials, but had been limited on this trip to 11 knots because of the coal supply.<<

That may be the case but the problem here is that few ships beyond warships can really zip up to full speed in only a minute or two. Especially if the ship is fully loaded as a cargo vessel would be. Her own inertia is working against her.

>>I believe that is a totally irrelevant point.<<

In terms of the actual event...yes. In terms of scholarly discussion, it's not quite as irrelevant if only because I've encountered people who thought that the Californian could have made like the cavalry charging to the rescue to save everybody at the last minute. Real life doesn't work that way, especially at sea.

>>How would anyone (other than Andrews perhaps) really know how long the Titanic was to remain afloat? The real point to be made is that Stone and Gibson saw a ship firing distress signals<<

They wouldn't, and in the actual event, that is the sticking point. Action was called for above and beyond what happened and it was never taken. While Captain Lord bears the ultimate responsibility for this...that's what comes with putting on that forth stripe...he was very poorly served by Stone and Gibson. It was not for nothing that Tracy Smith and myself referred to these guys as The Two Stooges. As a newbie to the sea, Gibson could perhaps be forgiven, but Stone knew better.

 

[Roy Kristiansen]

Ouch, Sam, have we had a bad day?

The points you made were, of course, correct. Did Lord's leadership style discourage his officers from sharing their thoughts with him? It would certainly seem so. Should those officers, knowing that the ship to the south firing socket signals, rockets, company signals, whatever, was not a small freighter but a large passenger liner, have hauled Lord out of his chart room and made him look for himself, even if their gut feelings that there was trouble ultimately proved wrong? You bet. If a large, glamorous passenger liner hadn't sunk just a few miles away killing almost 1,500 people and exposing the situation that existed on Lord's ship, would anybody care in the least about any of that? Not a chance. The case against Lord's officers is pretty clear. But if there was a problem there - with Lord's personality and leadership style, or his having spineless officers - I'm sure it began manifesting itself around him distinctly in advance of April 14-15. Quite a few things came together that morning.

Yes, Sam, they blew it. But what really could they have done - beyond what we've already mentioned - if they hadn't? The Inquiry claimed that, if they'd responded, they could have saved everybody on board the Titanic. Do you or anyone else still actually believe that?

I'm sorry if my posts often seem generalized, but I'm writing them on someone else's time, which makes spelling out every single cotton-pickin' detail rather difficult. '-)

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>But what really could they have done...<<

Not much beyond fish survivors out of the water, but in fairness to Sam, it misses the point. The point being that they should have acted a lot more proactively then they actually did.

>>The Inquiry claimed that, if they'd responded, they could have saved everybody on board the Titanic.<<

Not exactly, though it was certainly implied. The Senate report said this:

Had assistance been promptly proffered, or had wireless operator of the Californian remained a few minutes longer at his post on Sunday evening, that ship might have had the proud distinction of rescuing the lives of the passengers and crew of the Titanic.

The Mersey Court said:

When she first saw the rockets the "Californian" could have pushed through the ice to the open water without any serious risk and so have come to the assistance of the "Titanic." Had she done so she might have saved many if not all of the lives that were lost.

>>Do you or anyone else still actually believe that? <<

I don't think you'll find a lot of serious historians who do. The sticking point however remains the failure to act.

 

[Roy Kristiansen]

Hi, Michael!

>The sticking point however remains the failure to act.

Yes, and that's a given, Michael. If they'd had any doubts - which they did - they should have hauled Lord out of his chart room, as I said, woke up Evan, and then let the chips fall where they may.

The quotation you posted from the Mersey report, and to which I alluded earlier, is much more explicit than the Senate's. Unfortunately, that's the one people trying to sort out the Californian issue have latched onto for many years - despite such considerations as available time, speed of the ship, etc. (Egad! I never thought I'd ever be writing anything in defense of the Californian! But it's okay - I've just about reached my tolerance level.)

I can't help wondering how events would have proceeded (and this is pure speculation - please don't take it any other way!) if Cottam had followed his first inclination and gone straight to bed, instead of sitting down for one more go-round at his set. Anyone looking for a working definition of "irony" doesn't need to look any further than the Titanic disaster.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

if Cottam had followed his first inclination and gone straight to bed...

Well what probably would have happened is either the Mount Temple or the Californian would have been the ones to discover lifeboats on the other side of the ice field out near their visual horizon. At least Lord was willing to cut through the ice with his ship. He proved that. Moore was constrained by his company and would have put his passengers at some risk if he tried to. My guess, Lord would have been the hero of the day. Irony for sure.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>if Cottam had followed his first inclination and gone straight to bed, instead of sitting down for one more go-round at his set.<<

I think they were damned lucky that they did. Had it been otherwise, rescue would have been potentially much later rather then sooner, perhaps by at least four hours. That would almost assuredly have been fatal for some who were already on the edge of freezing to death.

>>Egad! I never thought I'd ever be writing anything in defense of the Californian! But it's okay - I've just about reached my tolerance level.)<<

It's known as facing reality, which can be damned ugly at times.

>>At least Lord was willing to cut through the ice with his ship.<<

Twice! The first time to get to the radioed distress position, the second time to get to where they could see the action was. In light of what had transpired the night before, I'm not sure that they would have been seen as heros, but it would have been a lot tougher to nail Captain Lord's hide to the barn.

 

[Dave Gittins]

Senator Smith had more to say than Michael's quote. Elsewhere in his report he wrote--

"...the failure of Captain Lord to arouse the wireless operator on his ship, who could have easily ascertained the name of the vessel in distress and reached her in time to avert loss of life, places a tremendous responsibility upon this officer from which it will be very difficult for him to escape. Had he been as vigilant in the movement of his vessel as he as he was active in displaying his own signal lamp, there is a very strong probability that every human life that was sacrificed through this disaster could have been saved."

Smith was much tougher on Lord than Mersey was. Mersey never accuses Lord of anything directly. It's always 'the Californian' that shouda, coulda, woulda. Smith attacked Lord far more savagely and on the basis of far less evidence than Mersey had before him. He had Gill's paid statement, some hearsay from Evans and a few admissions from Lord. This tends to be overlooked by the 'Lord was a scapegoat' school. The toughest condemnation of Lord came from a man who had no reason to cover up for the Board of Trade or White Star.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>He had Gill's paid statement, some hearsay from Evans and a few admissions from Lord. <<

And doggie doodoo from Gibson and Stone who were the guys who were actually on watch. They were never even summoned to appear. It would have been entertaining to see Smith take them apart, especially Stone. I have no doubt that Smith would have had him for breakfast.

I have to admit that I was surprised that an experienced trial lawyer...which Senator Smith was...made such sweeping conclusions after such a slipshod invesigation into the affair. He wasn't really wrong on a lot of points, but it was still botched.

 

[Paul Lee]

By the time Smith's report was issued, Stone et al. had given their stories in England, and this may have influenced the US Report?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Good point Paul. Also the influence of Capt. Knapp and his hypothetical position for the Californian.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>By the time Smith's report was issued, Stone et al. had given their stories in England, and this may have influenced the US Report?<<

It's possible. It's not as if both inquiries were not aware of what was going on in their counterparts hearing chambers because they were. Fleet, if I recall, was blidsided by some of his own Senate testimony by Mersey and Co. so it's not out of the question that Senator Smith wasn't as well informed.

 

[Dave Gittins]

I know for certain that transcripts of the US inquiry were sent to the main officials of the Board of Trade almost daily as the inquiry proceeded. They took a week or so to arrive.

A search of US archives might reveal that the reverse also applied. In any case, newspaper coverage was very detailed and up-to-date.

 

[Roy Kristiansen]

By the time Lord appeared before the Mersey boys, they also had the McGregor letter and were, presumably, well armed for the task ahead. Yet Mersey's report (Lord Mersey, the whitewash king) was lenient on Lord compared to the Senate's. My impression is that Lord had a far easier time testifying in Washington, and yet Senator Smith ultimately pounded him.

 

[Dave Gittins]

It's my suspicion that Mersey wanted to leave open the possibility of Lord being prosecuted in another court in the usual way. Therefore, he didn't attack him by name.

Lord was lucky not to be prosecuted, but it didn't happen. partly because some Board of Trade officials though he couldn't get a fair trial after his appearances at the two inquiries. Others were simply sympathetic and thought Lord had suffered enough. Here's a bit from my book.

"For Captain Stanley Lord, there was no knighthood, nor the command of a crack liner. Indeed, for some months after the rising of Lord Mersey’s court, it seemed that he might be left without a command of any kind. Mersey’s report was hot from the press when the Board of Trade began to consider the question of prosecuting him for failing to render assistance to Titanic. Sydney Buxton’s request for advice on the matter reached the desk of Sir Robert Ellis Cunliffe, solicitor to the Board of Trade, on 1 August. On the same day, Sir Robert wrote a brief note that summed up his objections to putting Lord on trial. It combined legalism with sympathy (and bad punctuation).

Captain Lord gave his version of what happened in the witness box here and in America, he might have taken the objection that he declined to reply lest he should incriminate himself; he did not do so & though the Wreck Commissioner did not accept his views explanations or excuses I would not advise a prosecution of Captain Lord under section 6 of the above Act [Maritime Conventions Act 1911] under the circumstances. I need hardly add that his punishment is already very great. Moreover he was in ice and stopped by the ice to a certain extent for I believe the 1st time.

Dazed by its own efficiency, the Board of Trade quickly reverted to form. The file wandered its corridors until October 1912, gathering signatures, opinions and ultimately, dust."

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>partly because some Board of Trade officials though he couldn't get a fair trial after his appearances at the two inquiries.<<

For whatever it's worth, I think there may have been a concern that he could have won an aquittal. A jury is a very strange animal and it can be shown from various books and articles written over the years that a case could be made for the defence.

Perhaps not a logical one in all respects but a case could be made.

Keep in mind that the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. All the defence has to do is show cause for reasonable doubt and good defence advocates are artists at this sort of thing.