I have pondered the problem Jim just put forth. He and I have been disagreeing over this conflict for years. While I respect his opinion I see things differently. One thing we seem to agree on is that the two testimonies don’t seem to come from men who were on the same bridge. He’s explained his position, so now I’ll present my solution to this enigma.
My starting assumption is that both men were telling the truth as they knew it. We have no evidence to the contrary for either man’s words. That said, I do believe that at best there was bias in Hichens’ testimony to protect himself from blame for the accident. At worst, I suspect he was under pressure to defend the explanation that Lord Mersey had in mind. To my newsman’s eye there was a bit of “spin doctoring” in his sudden appearance aboard Olympic in New York on the last possible day for testimony to the U.S. Senate inquiry. To add impact to his words he made is appearance in the boiler room of the ship and not a hearing room ashore. I count that as a public relations coup for White Star Line.
Whatever Hichens’ situation, the arrow of time flies only one way - into the future. In any reconstruction of the events surrounding Titanic’s accident we must adhere to strict chronological order. Else, everything is a jumble and no serious conclusions can be taken. Case in point is the conflict between Olliver and Hichens. As I see it, too many people unfortunately confuse the order of events. They think those events described by quarter master Hichens are the same as those witnessed by quartermaster Olliver. The easiest understood version of Hichens’ testimony came deep inside that Olympic boiler room. There is a tell-tale bit of information about Hichens’ testimony in words spoken by Senator Smith immediately after the quartermaster’s testimony.
Sen. SMITH: The officer gave you the necessary order?
Mr. HICHENS: Gave me the order, “Hard a’starboard.”
Sen. SMITH: Hard a’starboard?
Mr. HICHENS: Yes, sir.
Sen. SMITH: You carried it out immediately?
Mr. HICHENS: Yes, sir, immediately, with the sixth officer behind my back, with the junior officer behind my back, to see whether I carried it out – one of the juniors.
Sen. SMITH: Is that the only order you received before the collision, or impact?
[/B]
Mr. HICHENS: That is all, sir. ...
The key in that exchange is Senator Smith’s use of the word before in his question and Hichens’s reply which confirms that the“hard a’starboard” order he obeyed came prior to impact on the iceberg. This sequence of events is unequivocal – hard a’starboard came before impact on the iceberg. Olliver was the only eyewitness to the actions of Murdoch. His testimony to the U.S. Senate is equally unequivocal.
Sen. BURTON: Did you know whether the wheel was hard aport then? (Ed. Note: After impact on the berg.)
Mr. OLLIVER: I know the orders I heard when I was on the bridge was after we had struck the iceberg. I heard “hard a’port,” and there was the man at the wheel and the officer. The officer was seeing it was carried out right.
(Exchange about Sixth Officer Moody omitted for brevity)
Sen. BURTON: You do not know whether the helm was put hard a’starboard first, or not?
Mr. OLLIVER: No, sir, I do not know that.
Sen. BURTON: But you know it was put hard a’port after you got there?
Mr. OLLIVER: After I got there, yes, sir.
Sen. BURTON: Where was the iceberg, do you think, when the helm was shifted?
Mr. OLLIVER: The Iceberg was away up stern.
Sen. BURTON: That is when the order “hard a’port” was given?
Mr. OLLIVER: That is when the order “hard a’port” was given, yes, sir.
Sen. BURTON: Who gave the order?
Mr. OLLIVER: The First Officer.
In the men’s own words it becomes obvious that the order obeyed by Hichens came before impact while the order Olliver heard from First Officer Murdoch came afterward. They are not the same orders. The two men were speaking of two separate events separated by the impact of steel on ice. This means that Hichens could say truthfully he had a “hard a’starboard” helm order prior to impact. And, Olliver could say just as truthfully that the “hard a’port” order came afterward. Their words do not conflict nor do they contradict one another. The events they describe are separated by the forward motion of the arrow of time.
Now let’s look at the probable outcome of the accident if the ship were under starboard helm (left rudder in modern parlance) at time of impact. We should expect the following:
1. The berg would have slid down along the whole starboard side of the ship doing damage right along Titanic’s length. Left rudder would have swung the stern hard against the berg and there is a possibility the starboard propeller might have been damaged.
2. Quartermaster Rowe on the poop should have seen the iceberg coming under the ship’s fantail as it passed.
3. After impact the ship would have been curving to the left. The only way to see the berg would have been off the port quarter. We would expect officers to go to the port bridge wing to catch a glimpse of the icy menace.
4. Titanic should have stopped with its bow facing SW or SSW.
The above is for a hard a’starboard helm at and during impact. Now let’s look at what we would expect to see if Olliver was correct in saying that a hard a’port order was given and obeyed.
1. The ship’s bow should have come hard against the berg, probably in way of the well deck, and then the side of the ship should have started pulling away as the stern swung outward under right rudder.
2. Quartermaster Rowe on the poop should have seen the gap between berg and fantail appear to be widening as the ship passed its nemesis.
3. With the ship swinging to its right, the iceberg would only have been visible off the starboard quarter. The officers should have gone to the starboard bridge wing to catch sight of it before the berg disappeared into the night.
4. Titanic should have stopped with its bow pointing NNW or NW.
Note that these predicted events are mirror images of each other based upon whether the rudder was to the right (hard a’port) or to starboard (hard a’starboard). One set of prediction fails on all counts, while the other is correct on all counts. If the ship had been under left rudder as Hichens claimed, then the first set of predictions should match history. Unfortunately, none of them does. The hull did not hold itself against the berg; Rowe perceived the gap widening, not narrowing; it was necessary to go to the starboard bridge wing and not the port wing to see the iceberg; and, Titanic did not stop pointing SW or SSW.
Recall that I said both men spoke the truth. For Hichens’ testimony to have been true something more had to happen. It was necessary to have the ship turn right under right rudder (hard a’port in 1912 parlance) after impact – which is exactly what Olliver testified happened that night. By using right rudder, Murdoch would have restricted damage to the bow by swinging the starboard side away from the berg. As the ship turned right the officers quarters deckhouse blocked any view of the berg except from the starboard bridge wing – which is where the officers gathered. Rowe would have seen the gap between the fantail widening as the berg passed the poop. And, Titanic would have stopped facing NW or NNW which is very nearly the heading the bow still holds on the bottom.
Well, with a knuckle to my forehead in Jim’s direction I’ll end here.
– David G. Brown