The Board of Trade Guilty. 



LORD MERSEY'S "PAINSTAKING CHASTISEMENT.' 



THE American Inquiry under Senator Smitli 

 found a true bill against the Board of Trade, 

 and the special commission presided over by 

 Lord Mersey in London has brought in a verdict of 

 guilty. There are many who disparaged the work of 

 Senator Smith, and who now see that not only did he 

 act rapidly, but his recommendations and conclusions 

 have been in nearly every instance endorsed by the 

 British Commission. The salient difference between 

 the reports is that whereas the American Commission, 

 thinking as the general public think, desired to get 

 at facts without fear or favour, Lord Mersey's Com- 

 mission had much more colourless desires, and, 

 having greater opportunities, achieved far less. As 

 an attempt at whitewashing it does not succeed, 

 thanks largely to the admirable persistence of the 

 legal representatives of the sailors and firemen. 

 Without them Lord Mersey's task would have 

 been easier, the Inquiry would have been shorter, 

 and the findings possibly even more colourless. 

 The main part of the report which Lord Mersey's 

 Commission produced is that in which the Board 

 of Trade receives some part of that painstaking 

 chastisement which Senator Smith advocated for it. 

 These recommendations, which are in every case 

 tacit condemnations of past and present conditions, 

 we give below. With regard to the reason for the 

 loss of the Titanic, the Court found that it " was due 

 to collision with an iceberg, brought about by the 

 e.Kcessive speed at which the ship was being navi- 

 gated." This finding is undoubtedly the only possible 

 one, but attempts are made to weaken it h^ stating 

 that it was not possible " to blame Captain Smith " : — 

 " He had not the experience which his own mis- 

 fortune has afforded to those whom he has left 

 behind, and he was doing only that which other 

 skilled men would have done in the same position. 

 .... He made a mistake, a very grievous 

 mistake, but one in which, in face of the practice 

 and of past experience, negligence cannot be said to 

 have had any part ; and in the absence of negligence 

 it is, in my opinion, impossible to fix Captain 

 Smith with blame. It is, however^ to be hoped 

 that the last has been heard of the practice, and 

 that for the future it will be abandoned for what we 

 now know to be more prudent and wiser measures. 

 What was a mistake in the case of the Titanic 

 would, without doubt, be negligence in any 

 similar case in the future." 



Whether this skilfully-worded endeavour to save the 

 White Star Line from the claims of those interested 

 will hold water or not, remains to be seen. If, how- 

 ever, a motor driver drives his car in a dangerous place 

 at an excessive speed and kills someone, he is liable for 

 the damage caused. Are we to understand that if he 

 could prove he were the first driver to kill someone at 

 that specially dangerous spot, lie could plead that he 



had a right to immunity? Either an action is right 

 or wrong. The Court's finding amounts to this : the 

 action was wrong, but the driver did not do wron". 



The Court's only real attempt at straight fixing the 

 blame is with regard to the action of the Californian. 

 Here again the American finding was followed. But 

 whereas Senator Smith said "such conduct, whether 

 arising from indifference or gross carelessness, is most 

 reprehensible and places upon the commander of the 

 Californian a grave responsibility," the British report 

 says that " the truth is plain, and she might have 

 saved many if not all of the lives that were lost." 



Nothing more than that. We are curious to know 

 whether the Board of Trade have taken any steps in 

 the way of bringing Captain Lord, that thousandfold 

 murderer, to justice. As late as 191 1 the Board of 

 Trade made it a misdemeanour for one vessel not to 

 go to the assistance of another. The honour of the 

 British mercantile marine demands that action shall 

 be taken and that this disgrace to his cloth receive 

 his due punishment. The following are the recom- 

 mendations of the Court : — 



1. Th-at the newly appointed Bulkhead Committee should 

 inquire and report, among other matters, on the desirability 

 .and practicability of providing ships wiih (a) a double skin 

 carried up above the waterline : or, as an alternative, with (*) 

 a longitudinal, vertical, watertight bulkhead on each side of the 

 ship, e.xtending as far foivvard and aft as convenient: or i^c) 

 with a combination of ((?) and (*). Any one of the three (n), 

 {b) and [c) to he in .addition to watertight transverse bulkheads. 



2. That the Committee should also inquire and report as to 

 the desirability and practicability of fitting ships with (a) a 

 deck or decks at a convenient distance or distances above the 

 waterline, which shall be watertight throughout a part or the 

 whole of the ship's length ; and should in this connection re- 

 port upon (h) the means by which the necessary openings in 

 such deck or decks should be made watertight, whether by 

 watertight doors or watertight trunks or by any other and 

 what means. 



3. That the Committee should consider and report generally 

 on the practicability of increasing the protection given by sub- 

 division ; the object being to secure that the ship shall tcmain 

 afloat with the ; reatest practicable proportion of her length in 

 free communication with the sea. 



4. That when the Committee has reported upon the matters 

 before mentioned, the B .ard of Tr.ade should take the report 

 into their consideration and to the extent to which they approve 

 of it should seek .Siaiulory powers to enforce it in all newly 

 built ships, but with a discretion to relax the requirements in 

 pecial cases where it may seem right to them to do so. 



5. Tiiat the Hoaid of Trade should be empowered by the 

 Legislature to require the prodm-iion of the designs and specifi- 

 cations of all ships in their early stages of construction and to 

 direct such amendments of the same as may be thought necessary 

 and practicable for the safety of life at sea in ships. (This 

 should .apply to all passenger carrying ships.) 



6. That the provision of lilehoat and raft accommodation on 

 board such ships should be b.ased on the numbei: of persons 

 intended to be carried in the ship and not upon tonnage. 



7. That the question of such accommodation should'be treated 

 independently of the question of the sub-division of Ihe ship 

 into watcrliglit compartments. (This involves the abolition of 

 Rule 12 of the Life .Saving .Appliances Rules of 1902.) 



8. That the acconnnodation should be suflicient for all per- 

 sons on boaril, with, however, the qualification that in special 

 cases where, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, such pro- 



