by Senan Molony
If the ship he saw was the Titanic, going along at full speed of 22 knots, then she will be more than 14½ miles away by the time of the rockets, if indeed she was able to steam unmolested for forty minutes. But if she stopped, then she should be visible.
Why are we even debating Gill? This big steamer simply cannot be the Titanic. She cannot be because she is moving aggressively when the Titanic is sinking, but she cannot be, more plainly, because Gill has simply invented her! Gill’s rushing ship must be discarded. Because as Lord Mersey knows (‘I cannot understand that’), the argument can be distilled this simply – if the Californian is seeing the Titanic at a short distance at midnight, then the Titanic must still be there and visible when the rockets are fired at a time some forty minutes later. Gill’s evidence is in trouble. It conflicts with Gibson and Stone who see both a ship and rockets. Gill sees only rockets and the empty water’s edge. Gill has a disappearing ship, followed by shipless rockets.
Stone and Gibson’s ship had not disappeared. She was very much present, within short miles, as rockets went up. They could see her plainly and Gill could not. And these two deck officers also saw rockets not only while another ship was present, but when an extensive icefield had caused that nearby ‘tramp steamer’ to stop, prudently.
But perhaps that vessel too was incompetently navigated and could not see the ‘break in the ice’ within yards of her that Gill had so effortlessly espied from miles to her north! The more one tests Gill’s story, the more it resembles his account of the shrinking field ice – with features that speedily resolve themselves into water. Can we trust anything Gill says? Consider these twists and turns from his brief US examination (p.712):
…What colour was the rocket?
Gill: It would be apt to be a very clear blue; I would catch it when it was dying. I did not catch the exact tint, but I reckon it was white.
Senator Fletcher: Did it look as if the rocket had been sent up and the explosion had taken place in the air and the stars spangled out?
Gill: Yes, sir; the stars spangled out. I could not say about the stars. I say I caught the tail end of the rocket.
He has come a long way from a ‘shooting star’. Now he can see thrown stars from an individual rocket. Yet, terrified of being caught out, he immediately retracts this claim. ‘I could not say about the stars’. At the end of the day, his evidence can only be boiled down to a claim that rockets were seen ‘at a great distance’ from the deck of the Californian. And we know that already, just as Gill knew it already from gossip he had heard below decks after the tragedy.
Gill testified towards the end of the British Inquiry when all the other Californian witnesses had long since been heard and were gone. Why, one wonders? Yet this is how the Attorney General chose to introduce this witness (p.407; 18128–9):
Your Lordship will remember this was the assistant donkeyman of the Californian, with regard to whom some statement was made by the other witnesses of the Californian. The only point was he was referred to as a deserter at Boston. The suggestion at one time was that he had made a statement which was not true in America about the distress signals having been sent up, and there was a suggestion at one time made that in consequence of a story which he had put forward, which would not bear examination, he had deserted the vessel at Boston. It is no longer necessary to clear that up, because Mr Gill’s story, as told in America, has – I do not want to say more than this – been very much confirmed by the evidence which we have put before the Court of the various officers – your Lordship will remember we called a number of them – and also of Gibson, the apprentice, so that it is not necessary now to go into his story, whatever it may be, as your Lordship will see the substance of it is no longer in dispute, and he was fully justified in what he said in America. The officers have now borne out the substance of his statement.
This was said before Gill had uttered a word in London. It is, on the face of it, quite an extraordinary preface to his appearance. It is entirely untrue to say that Gill’s story had been ‘very much confirmed by the evidence’ when Gill alone would completely contradict himself. It is also not true that ‘the various officers’ confirmed Gill’s account – quite the reverse. They do nothing to back it up. Only Groves with his passenger steamer is superficially supportive of Gill’s big ship, yet Gill will go on to clash with most of Groves’ evidence. If the substance means that rockets were fired, then it is a poor remnant of Gill’s elaborate tale. And it is, on the evidence, thoroughly shocking for a British Attorney General to say Gill was ‘fully justified in what he said in America’. Gill, in reality, is completely untrustworthy.
We know one person to desert a ship in trouble: Ernest Gill. He absented himself from the Californian after selling his fable to the newspapers. She nonetheless sailed home with her full crew, apart from fireman William Kennerdale, who died of heart trouble during the stay at Boston. Captain Lord saw to Kennerdale’s burial, sorted out paperwork with the British Consul, and brought home the dead fireman’s wages, clothing and effects. Captain Lord reported the death in a letter to the Marine Superintendent at Liverpool, and expressed apologies for leaving out some details earlier, promising to ‘guard against omissions in the future’. Kennerdale was buried on Friday 26 April 1912 – the day Lord testified in Washington and the day the Boston Herald branded his ship the ‘Liner charged with deserting Titanic’ in a headline over a picture of the Californian at her dock.
17
BOSTON
The Californian duly made landfall in Boston on 19 April and was greeted by a number of reporters because of an erroneous report that she could be bringing back bodies from the disaster area. Lord first had a meeting with the local agent of his line, Leyland’s John Thomas, at which he may have outlined what the Californian had seen, and certainly gave his overnight position. Lord later met reporters and described the morning dash to the scene, not mentioning rockets, and when asked by one reporter for his latitude and longitude, remarked that he was ‘asking for a state secret’, adding that it would ‘have to be answered by those in the office’, perhaps pointing to the local agent’s premises. Later in the company’s office, with agent Thomas in attendance, Lord did indeed give out to the press his overnight stop position.
Next a carpenter from the Californian named McGregor went on shore leave to visit a cousin in the small town of Clinton, west of Boston. After the visit, the cousin – not the carpenter himself – told the local newspaper of Gill-like gossip that his ship (reported throughout as the ‘California’) had seen rockets and been ‘within ten miles of the Titanic’. This erroneous, and now at least third-hand, story had the Californian steaming all through the night, never having stopped, as her crew universally later testified she did. It also claimed ‘those on board the California could see the lights of the Titanic very plainly’.
Captain Lord rejected this the next day to the Boston Post, denying his vessel had seen or ignored any distress signals. The Californian had sighted no rockets or other signals of distress, the newspaper reported. Lord did not mention the Californian had seen someone’s rockets – and seemed to rely on his crew’s assertions that the rockets they saw were not distress signals since, as Stone would say, ‘a vessel in distress does not steam away from you’.
The Boston Globe followed up their rival’s story and spoke to agent Thomas, who described the claims in the Clinton newspaper as perfectly absurd, adding that the vessels were 20 miles apart and ‘no signals could possibly be seen at this distance’. The Globe noted that Captain Lord ‘simply ignored the story yesterday’. It added: ‘None of the crew would say they had seen any signals of distress or any lights on the night of Sunday April 14’. Prompted by press interest however, Ernest Gill now told his yarn to the Boston American. Controversy was inflamed again.
The reporters returned to the dock and demanded answers of Captain Lord. He told his inquisitors that they could judge Gill for themselves: the Titanic had struck a berg at twenty minutes to midnight ‘a
nd here this man says he saw the vessel proceeding at full speed about midnight, some twenty minutes after the accident’.
Lord also pointed out that Gill had been paid $500 for his affidavit and added that he did not expect any difficulty in explaining to US investigators his entire innocence of ‘ignoring any signals from the Titanic’. He also said he did not see why Gill’s story should be given credence ‘especially when such obviously unsailorlike deeds were admitted in the affidavit’, continuing:
Do you suppose any man of any race would see signals of distress and fail to report them either to the bridge or to the lookout? Can you imagine a man, realising that fellow sailors were in dire straits, failing to notify someone that he had seen such signals?
The Boston Herald, a ‘yellower’ newspaper than the Globe, said Captain Lord’s story was corroborated by First Officer Stewart, by Second Officer Stone, and by a quartermaster on duty that night. It added that Stone ‘emphatically denied that he had notified Captain Lord of any rockets, as he had seen none, nor had any been reported to him’. This was the first outright falsehood, and it is attributed to Stone. It will be seen elsewhere that Lord’s comments have been defensive and economical, as one might expect in the case of a man thrown into a difficult position by the hyperbole of a crewman’s ‘confession’, but he has not resorted thus far to outright lies.
Lord was already on his way to Washington to give evidence when a story appeared in the Boston Journal, a newspaper catching up with its fellows. It said one of its reporters had spoken to Captain Lord the night before and quoted the master thus:
Mr Stewart, the First Officer, was on the bridge during the times that the signals were supposed to have been seen, and he can tell you himself that nothing of the kind was seen by him or any of the men who were on watch with him.
This would appear to make Lord a direct liar. But the story is quite evidently wrong – Stewart was not on the bridge at the time the signals were ‘supposed to have been seen’. The article continued to quote Lord, now saying he received news that the Titanic was sinking ‘from the Virginia’ (the ship was the Virginian) at ‘about 3.30 a.m.’ – when in fact Lord first heard the confirmation shortly before 6 a.m. and was not even woken before 4.30 a.m.
The ‘about 3.30 a.m.’ may be a misunderstanding for the New York time kept by the wireless operator (who gave 3.30 a.m. NYT, as one of the times he was woken up!), but such a failure of comprehension suggests the newspaper imported this time from elsewhere. Lord kept apparent ship’s time throughout and had no truck with New York time. This is demonstrated as the same newspaper quotes Lord further, as follows, leading him into what would appear to be blithe and stupid contradiction of the earlier attributed remark about the time of finding out:
Everything had been quiet during the night and no signals of distress or anything else had been seen, and about 5 o’clock in the morning, which is my regular time for getting up, I told Mr Stewart to wake up Wireless and have him get in touch with some ship and get an idea of what kind of an ice field we had gotten into.
These ‘quotes’ then, and the other statements in quotation marks, are entirely at odds with the actual events of that night as testified to by Lord and others at the American and British Inquiries.
Opponents of Captain Lord regularly charge that he ‘lied’ and told ‘falsehoods’ to the newspapers in Boston. Yet any fair-minded assessor may conclude that, in the face of obdurate silence from the crew and denials of Gill’s story by Lord, the Boston Journal at least may have felt it could put all manner of words into Captain Lord’s mouth, denying everything. Failing that, the glaring mistakes in a version of events supposedly acquired from the horse’s mouth hardly inspire confidence that what Captain Lord actually said was faithfully transcribed and accurately reproduced. And why would Lord lie in such crass, contradictory terms to only one newspaper? No, the fairest assessment of Lord’s press statements in Boston is that they were defensive and deflective. He was warding off controversy. And this at least is a perfectly understandable human reaction.
Both the press and the captain knew at this time that he had been called to the US Inquiry. It would be not only irresponsible, but downright silly, for Lord to comment in such circumstances. Instead Lord was already in Washington DC when the Boston Journal tried to put one over on its rivals. We do not know if Lord was exasperated at these misrepresentations. And yet the suggestion that he himself descended into outright mendacity would mean behaviour totally out-of-keeping with his conduct during the inquiries – when his plain and non-excusatory testimony created greater difficulties for himself.
The reader must decide what, if anything, these press reports mean. Certainly they were ignored by both the US and British Inquiries, which asked their own questions and recorded the answers verbatim in open court. Finally, it should also be pointed out that whatever view is taken of Lord’s character – and he would see it as his sole asset in commanding the respect of his men – the impugning of Lord the man is essentially irrelevant to the overall question as to whether his vessel, the Californian, could have been the Titanic’s mystery ship.
18
THE US INQUIRY
The US Inquiry heard evidence from only three Californian witnesses. The first was Gill, whose affidavit was read into the record, and who was briefly questioned by senators. Also called was Wireless Operator Cyril Evans. And between these men was Captain Stanley Lord, the first two-thirds of whose evidence was largely pedestrian, leading up to his account of the night itself (US Inquiry, p.728):
Senator Smith: Captain, did you see any distress signals on Sunday night, either rockets or the Morse signals?
Lord: No sir; I did not. The officer on watch saw some signals, but he said they were not distress signals.
Sen. Smith: They were not distress signals?
Lord: Not distress signals.
One can conceivably see that the above resembles Lord’s conversations with Boston newsmen. He denies distress signals were seen, but waits until the Inquiry to describe exactly what was seen from the Californian that night. At this point, Lord describes at some length his account of what happened (US Inquiry, p.728–9).
Lord: Not distress signals.
Sen. Smith: But he reported them?
Lord: To me. I think you had better let me tell you that story.
Sen. Smith: I wish you would.
Lord: When I came off the bridge, at half past 10, I pointed out to the officer that I thought I saw a light coming along, and it was a most peculiar night, and we had been making mistakes all along with the stars, thinking they were signals. We could not distinguish where the sky ended and where the water commenced. You understand, it was a flat calm. He said he thought it was a star, and I did not say anything more. I went down below. I was talking with the engineer about keeping the steam ready, and we saw these signals coming along, and I said: ‘There is a steamer passing. Let us go to the wireless and see what the news is’. But on our way down I met the operator coming, and I said, ‘Do you know anything?’ He said, ‘The Titanic’. So, then, I gave him instructions to let the Titanic know. I said, ‘This is not the Titanic; there is no doubt about it’. She came and lay at half past 11 alongside of us until, I suppose, a quarter past, within 4 miles of us. We could see everything on her quite distinctly, see her lights. We signalled her, at half past 11, with the Morse lamp. She did not take the slightest notice of it. That was between half past 11 and 20 minutes to 12. We signalled her again at 10 minutes past 12, half past 12, a quarter to 1 o’clock. We have a very powerful Morse lamp. I suppose you can see that about 10 miles, and she was about 4 miles off, and she did not take the slightest notice of it. When the Second Officer came on the bridge, at 12 o’clock, or 10 minutes past 12, I told him to watch that steamer, which was stopped, and I pointed out the ice to him; told him we were surrounded by ice; to watch the steamer that she did not get any closer to [us]. At 20 minutes to 1, I whistled up the speaking tube and asked him if she was getti
ng any nearer. He said, ‘No; she is not taking any notice of us’. So, I said ‘I will go and lie down for a bit’. At a quarter past he said, ‘I think she has fired a rocket’. He said, ‘She did not answer the Morse lamp and she has commenced to go away from us’. I said, ‘Call her up and let me know at once what her name is. So, he put the whistle back, and, apparently, he was calling. I could hear him ticking over my head. Then I went to sleep.
Succinct. And rather ordinary. It is interesting that Captain Lord spoke to the chief engineer about keeping steam ready. He wanted to be able to move quickly in any eventuality. This point had come into play just before Lord’s thumbnail sketch of events (US Inquiry, p.728):
Senator Fletcher: You were asked by Senator Smith a moment ago whether, if the wireless operator on the Californian had been on duty, he would have picked up this message from the Titanic giving the alarm?
Lord: Yes.
Sen. Fletcher: Could you have gone to the relief of the Titanic at that time?
Lord: Most certainly.
Sen. Fletcher: You could have gone?
Lord: We could have gone; yes.
Sen. Fletcher: The engines were not running then.
Lord: The engines were stopped; perfectly stopped.
