by Senan Molony
9120. What basis had you for saying she was near you? — The strength of the signals…
9126. Would that indicate roughly a certain number of miles – that you must be within a certain number of miles? — By the strength of the signals I should say he was not more than 100 miles off us in the afternoon. I heard him working a long time before I got him.
So, to Evans, the word ‘near’ means within 100 miles. Up to nine hours’ steaming away by the Californian’s speed that afternoon. Evans said the Titanic wireless set had ‘a good power’, but added when asked:
9124. Would the Titanic be able to judge from the distinctness of your message that you were near them? —Yes, you cannot judge a distance accurately.
Clearly then, Evans’ reference to ‘near us’ is of no assistance to anyone – except Lord Mersey.
Next, Mersey skilfully, almost imperceptibly, will denigrate the character of the Californian’s captain before anything has yet happened (Final Report, p.43):
The Master of the Californian states that when observing the approaching steamer… he noticed that about 11.30 she stopped. In his opinion this steamer was of about the same size as the Californian; a medium-sized steamer, ‘something like ourselves’.
From the evidence of Mr Groves, third officer of the Californian, 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.
Mersey makes it appear Lord was lying about seeing the steamer, and about seeing her stop. In actual fact, Lord watched her from the lower deck, separate to the bridge but no less valid. He had actually noticed the light much earlier than Groves, who noticed it first at 11.10. Lord said he spotted a light at 10.30 p.m. which emerged into a steamer. The above shows how Mersey implies that Lord was lying about seeing the vessel, thereby casting doubt about whether the stranger was, as Lord said, a medium-sized steamer, or ‘something like ourselves’.
Note how Mersey now suggests that the Californian’s stranger was undoubtedly a passenger steamer by linking the evidence of Groves and donkeyman Gill, even though their evidence is mutually exclusive (Final Report, p.43–44):
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 donkeyman of the Californian, 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’.
So Gill is used to validate Groves’ passenger steamer. Gill is also used to transfer the idea of ‘large’ to Groves’ steamer, even though Groves never once offered an adjective in relation to the size of his steamer. Groves simply never said whether she was small, medium or large. He only said that she was a passenger steamer. But what Groves did say was that the near vessel had ‘put out’ her lights for the night before Gill saw her. Groves also said his steamer was stopped, but note how Mersey somehow fails to mention the inbuilt flaw in Gill, which of course is that his supposed steamer was actively steaming, and at ‘full speed’.
It is only after this altogether fraudulent use of Gill to reinforce Groves’ passenger steamer claims that the unavoidable question of that steamer’s lack of light is tackled (Final Report, p.44):
The Master came up and joined [Groves] 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 to him about the steamer’s deck lights going out.
Captain Lord indeed denies that the conversation described by Groves took place, but Mersey obviously prefers Groves’ account. It is noticeable that the captain’s presence on the bridge for ‘only… a few minutes’ is introduced before his denial of the conversation. The subliminal message is that Lord was too lazy to care what was said to him by a conscientious officer.
But if Groves is right and it does not look like a passenger steamer at this time, how can it subsequently have been unmistakably a ‘large passenger boat’ to Gill more than ten minutes later?
And look at Mersey’s line that ‘Mr Groves admitted that if his steamer’s head was turning to port after she stopped…’ How can she turn after she stopped? A sudden rogue wave? The unreliable notion is that the Titanic turned to starboard to face north – not that Groves’ vessel turned to port, which he did not say (another Mersey mistake).
Meanwhile, Lord Mersey has artfully arranged chosen slices of evidence in a new sequence to suit his own taste. He goes on (Final Report, p.44):
Mr Groves… remained on the bridge until relieved by Mr Stone, the Second Officer, just after midnight. In turning the Californian over to him, he pointed out the steamer and said: ‘she has been stopped since 11.40 p.m.; she is a passenger steamer’.
Again Mersey opts to believe Groves’ account and not that of Stone who did not say it was ever suggested to him that the steamer he saw nearby was a passenger steamer. Stone could see for himself that she was a tramp.
Mersey’s Final Report omits any mention of the rather salient fact that Stone and Gibson instead thought the steamer nearby was small to medium-sized, with nothing about her, in Gibson’s words, to suggest a passenger steamer (Final Report, p.44):
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 the Titanic?’ — 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.
Mersey then goes on to declare: ‘Gill, the donkeyman, states that he saw two rockets fired from the ship which he had been observing’ (Final Report, p.44). But Gill did not see them fired from a ship. He says he did not see any ship at the time of the rockets. Gill said his ship had gone, when clearly, if she was the Titanic, she should have been stopped. Mersey’s phraseology would suggest that she was indeed stopped – ‘had been observing’ – whereas Gill suggested his magical midnight steamer, going full speed, had long since rushed off towards New York.
Enough. We can see which way Mersey’s report is going. There is little point in further nit-picking over his artful phrasing and choices of whom to believe. Let us cut to the quick of his conclusions (Final Report, pp.45–46):
There are contradictions and inconsistencies in the story as told by the different witnesses. But the truth of the matter is plain.
The Titanic collided with the berg at 11.40. The vessel seen by the Californian stopped at this time. The rockets sent up from the Titanic were distress signals. The Californian saw distress signals. The number sent up by the Titanic was about eight. The Californian saw eight.
The time over which the rockets from the Titanic were sent up was from about 12.45 to 1.45. It was about this time that the Californian saw 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. the Titanic had foundered.
It was suggested that the rockets see
n by the Californian were from some other ship, not the Titanic. But no other ship to fit this theory has ever been heard of.
These circumstances convince me that the ship seen by the Californian was the Titanic…
Mersey’s list of coincidences are, in reality, contrivances.
The Titanic collided with the berg at 11.40 p.m., but the vessel seen by Californian probably stopped significantly earlier. Times not identical.
The rockets sent up by Titanic were indeed distress signals, but what rockets Californian saw did not lead her observers to conclude that they were distress signals.
Although the Californian saw eight rockets, it must be extremely doubtful from the testimony that the RMS Titanic fired only eight rockets. If she did fire only eight, then they were not being fired at ‘short intervals’ – a requirement, under regulation, if distress was to be conveyed.
There is nothing convincing about alleged similarity in timing between the Titanic sinking and the Californian’s stranger steaming away. The nearby ship seen by Stone began to move off from the time the second rocket was seen. Titanic had no power when sending rockets, and could not change her bearing, as described by Stone and related by Gibson.
Mersey suggests that there had to be two ships firing rockets at the same time that night if the Californian’s account is to be believed. But this is not the case, given what we now know about the Titanic’s actual position in 1912.
Meanwhile it would not even be true to say that no candidates have ever been suggested for another ship (the one visible to the Californian) while rockets were also being seen, in Stone’s words, at a ‘greater distance’ (7845). It is no part of this assessment to identify particular ships as either the Titanic’s mystery ship or the Californian’s nearby stranger. But it was a busy shipping lane and there are many candidates.
Captain Lord was asked about the possible identity of Californian’s stranger, with the first emphasis predictably and rather wearisomely on the Titanic:
6818. [The Attorney General] If [Groves] did see two lights it must have been the Titanic, must it not? — It does not follow.
6819. Do you know any other vessel it could have been? — Any amount.
Any amount have since been suggested, in the categories of both the Titanic’s proximate vessel and the Californian’s close visitor.
Lord in a 1959 affidavit said that while searching for survivors the next morning he saw ‘the smoke of several steamers on the horizon in different directions’. The Board of Trade and Foreign Office expended much energy during and after the British Inquiry in 1912 in trying to identify the small steamer carrying a black funnel with ‘some device in it’ described by Captain Moore of the Mount Temple. They initiated hundreds of contacts in her pursuit. Yet because this vessel was eastbound, cutting across the Mount Temple’s bows and apparently stopped on the western edge of the ice barrier later that morning, this vessel must be a red herring. She certainly could not have been the Californian’s stranger and likely not the Titanic’s mystery ship as that vessel was sighted too early the previous night and located much further to the east.
Any amount of perplexing ships… yet the US Inquiry singled out only one for blame. And in its wake, the British equivalent chose the same target and utterly refused to be deflected.
23
LORD’S REBUTTAL
Lord Mersey’s Final Report was issued on 30 July 1912. It had found an answer to the highly irregular question it had given itself following the departure of Captain Lord and other Californian witnesses (p.71):
Q.24(b): What vessels had the opportunity of rendering assistance to the Titanic and, if any, how was it that assistance did not reach the Titanic before the SS Carpathia arrived?
A: The Californian. She could have reached the Titanic if she had made the attempt when she saw the first rocket. She made no attempt.
In a special section on ‘The Circumstances in connection with the SS Californian’ (pp.43–46), Lord Mersey finished:
The ice by which the Californian was surrounded was loose ice extending for a distance of not more than two or three miles in the direction of the Titanic [accepting Gill’s nonsensical idea of a vanishing icefield]. The night was clear and the sea was smooth. When she first saw the rockets, the Californian could have pushed through the ice to the open water without 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.
Within two weeks of these dismaying findings, Captain Lord had personally prepared his own rebuttal to the charges laid at his door. The counter-argument he was not allowed by the Inquiry took the form of a letter to the publication of his professional body, the Merchant Marine Service Association. The letter, dated 14 August 1912, was written the day after he was told by the Leyland Line that he would not be re-appointed to the Californian in light of the Inquiry findings. It was published in the September issue of The Reporter, the MMSA’s journal, and is as follows (this author’s comments in square brackets):
Sir –
The issue of the Report of the Court, presided over by Lord Mersey, to inquire into the loss of the Titanic, ends a compulsory silence on my part on points raised in the course of the proceedings which affect me as the late Master of the steamer Californian, and it is a duty I owe to myself and my reputation as a British Shipmaster, to do what I have hitherto been prevented from doing, for obvious reasons, in giving publicity to circumstances which the Inquiry failed to elicit, and at the same time to show that the deductions which have been drawn, reflecting upon my personal character as a seaman, are entirely unfounded.
The facts briefly and consistently are as follows: On the night of the 14th April I had been on the bridge from dark until 10.30 p.m., at that time having run into loose ice, and, sighting field ice ahead, I deemed it prudent for the safety of the life and property under my charge to remain stopped until daylight. My wireless operator had been in communication with a number of steamers up to 11.30 p.m., and he then retired for the night, after a full day’s duty, but not before warning all ships in the vicinity, including the Titanic, of the dangerous proximity of ice.
Forty minutes after midnight I left the deck in charge of the Second Officer, with instructions to call me if wanted, and retired to the chartroom, where I lay down, fully dressed, boots on and with the light burning. At 1.15 a.m. the Second Officer informed me through the speaking tube that a steamer, which had been stopped in sight of us since 11.30 p.m., bearing SSE, was altering her bearing [in other words was steaming away] and had fired a white rocket.
Meanwhile for over an hour my Morse signals to this vessel had been ignored. The officer reported her to be steaming away, and I asked him, ‘if he thought it was a company’s signal, to Morse her again and report’. The evidence of my officers from this point is conclusive that I had gone to sleep. A later message, to the effect that she was last seen bearing SW a half W, proving she had steamed at least eight miles between 1 a.m. and 2 a.m. [Titanic did not move after midnight] I have no recollection of receiving, and subsequent events were not regarded by the officers so seriously as to induce them to take energetic means of ensuring my cognizance of happenings, which should, and would, most assuredly have had my earnest attention.
I did not hear of the disaster until daylight, and that only after it was deemed safe for my steamer to proceed.
The evidence is conclusive that none of the responsible officers of the Californian were aware of the serious calamity which had taken place. That any seaman would wilfully neglect signals of distress is preposterous and unthinkable – there was everything to gain and nothing to lose. The failure to adopt energetic means of making me aware of the gravity of the signals is conclusive of the fact that my officers did not attach any significance to their appearance.
The absence of any reply to the succession of Morse signals made from the bridge of the Californian is further evidence which is entitled to some consideration.
The evidence of the Titanic officer who was firing her distress signals states the steamer he had under observation ‘approached’ – obviously not the Californian, as she was stopped from 10.30 p.m. until 5.15 a.m.
Captain Rostron of the Carpathia states, ‘Whilst at the scene of the disaster at 5 a.m. it was broad daylight; he could see all round the horizon. He then saw two steamers north of where he was [the direction of the Californian]. Neither of them was the Californian; he first saw that steamer at about 8 a.m., distant 5 to 6 miles, and steaming towards the Carpathia.
Had the Californian been seen by the Titanic before sinking, she would have been plainly in view from the Carpathia at this time, as she was then on the same spot as when she stopped at 10.30 p.m. the previous evening.
The conversation between my Second Officer and Apprentice, when watching the steamer referred to, was that she must have been a tramp steamer using oil lamps, and that opinion was formed by them after keenly studying the situation, and before they had heard of any disaster.
My position at the Inquiry was that of a witness only, and a nautical man rarely makes a good witness. My position was Marconigramed to other steamers at 6.30 p.m., five hours before the accident, and also at 5.15 a.m., before I had heard of the position of the accident, proving my distance from the disaster as given by me to be correct.
