The Truth about the Titanic · Archibald Gracie
Charles Hendrickson, leading fireman (Br. Inq.):
When the ship sank we picked up nobody. The passengers would not listen to our going back. Of the twelve in the boat, seven were of the crew. Symons, who was in charge, said nothing and we all kept our mouths shut. None of the crew objected to going back. It was a woman who objected, Lady Duff Gordon, who said we would be swamped. People screaming for help could be heard by everyone in our boat. I suggested going back. Heard no one else do so. Mr. Duff Gordon upheld his wife.
After we got on the Carpathia Gordon sent for them all and said he would make them a present. He was surprised to receive five pounds from him the day after docking in New York.
Hendrickson recalled.
Witness cross examined by Sir Cosmo Duff Gordon’s counsel.
What did you say about Sir Cosmo’s alleged statement preventing you from going back?
Witness: It was up to us to go back.
Did anyone in the boat say anything to you about going back?
Witness: Lady Duff Gordon said something to the effect that if we went back the boat would be swamped.
Who was it that first said anything about Sir Cosmo making a presentation to the crew?
Witness: Fireman Collins came down and said so when we were on board the Carpathia.
Before we left the Carpathia all the people rescued were photographed together. We members of the crew wrote our names on Lady Duff Gordon’s lifebelt. From the time we first left off rowing until the time the vessel sank, Lady Duff Gordon was violently seasick and lying on the oars.
A. E. Horswell, A. B. (Br. Inq.):
Witness said it would have been quite a safe and proper thing to have gone back and that it was an inhuman thing not to do so, but he had to obey the orders of the coxswain. Two days after boarding the Carpathia some gentlemen sent for him and he received a present.
J. Taylor, fireman (Br. Inq.):
Witness testifies that No. 1 boat stood by about 100 yards to avoid suction and was 200 yards off when the Titanic sank. He heard a suggestion made about going back and a lady passenger talked of the boat’s being swamped if they did so.
Two gentlemen in the boat said it would be dangerous.
Did your boat ever get within reach of drowning people?
Witness: No.
How many more could the boat have taken in?
Witness: Twenty-five or thirty in addition to those already in it.
Did any of the crew object to going back?
Witness: No.
Did you ever hear of a boat’s crew consisting of six sailors and one fireman?
Witness: No.
Lord Mersey: What was it that Sir Cosmo Duff Gordon said to you in the boat?
Witness: He said he would write to our homes and to our wives and let them know that we were safe.
Witness said he received five pounds when he was on board the Carpathia.
R. W. Pusey, fireman (Br. Inq.):
After the ship went down we heard cries for a quarter of an hour, or twenty minutes. Did not go back in the direction the Titanic had sunk. I heard one of the men say: “We have lost our kit,” and then someone said: “Never mind, we will give you enough to get a new kit.” I was
surprised that no one suggested going back. I was surprised that I did not do so, but we were all half dazed. It does occur to me now that we might have gone back and rescued some of the strugglers. I heard Lady Duff Gordon say to Miss Francatelli: “You have lost your beautiful nightdress,” and I said: “Never mind, you have saved your lives; but we have lost our kit”; and then Sir Cosmo offered to provide us with new ones.
Sir Cosmo Duff Gordon (Br. Inq.):
No. 7 was the first boat I went to. It was just being filled. There were only women and the boat was lowered away. No. 3 was partially filled with women, and as there were no more, they filled it up with men. My wife would not go without me. Some men on No. 3 tried to force her away, but she would not go. I heard an officer say: “Man No. 1 boat.” I said to him: “May we get in that boat?” He said: “With pleasure; I wish you would.” He handed the ladies in and then put two Americans in, and after that he said to two or three firemen that they had better get in. When the boat was lowered I thought the Titanic was in a very grave condition. At the time I thought that certainly all the women had gotten off. No notice at all was taken
in our boat of these cries. No thought entered my mind about its being possible to go back and try to save some of these people. I made a promise of a present to the men in the boat.
There was a man sitting next to me and about half an hour after the Titanic sank a man said to me: “I suppose you have lost everything?” I said: “Yes.” He said: “I suppose you can get more.” I said: “Yes.” He said: “Well, we have lost all our kit, for we shall not get anything out of the Company, and our pay ceases from to-night.” I said: “Very well, I will give you five pounds each towards your kit.”
Were the cries from the Titanic clear enough to hear the words, “My God, My God”?
No. You have taken that from the story in the American papers.
Mr. Stengel in his evidence in New York said, “Between Mr. Duff Gordon and myself we decided the direction of the boat.”
That’s not so; I did not speak to the coxswain in any way.
Lady Duff Gordon (Br. Inq.):
After the three boats had been gotten away my husband and I were left standing on the deck. Then my husband went up and said, might we
not get into this boat, and the officer said very politely: “If you will do so I should be very pleased.” Then somebody hitched me up at the back, lifted me up and pitched me into the boat. My husband and Miss Francatelli were also pitched into the boat; and then two Americans were also pitched in on top of us. Before the Titanic sank I heard terrible cries.
Q. Is it true in an article signed by what purports to be your signature that you heard the last cry which was that of a man shouting, “My God, My God”?
A. Absolutely untrue.
Address by Mr. A. Clement Edwards, M. P., Counsel for Dock Workers’ Union (Br. Inq.):
Referring to the Duff Gordon incident he said that the evidence showed that in one of the boats there were only seven seamen and five passengers. If we admitted that, this boat had accommodation for twenty-eight more passengers.
The primary responsibility for this must necessarily be placed on the member of the crew who was in charge of the boat—Symons, no conduct of anyone else in the boat, however reprehensible, relieving that man from such responsibility.
Here was a boat only a short distance from the ship, so near that the cries of those struggling in the water could be heard. Symons had been told
to stand by the ship, and that imposed upon him a specific duty. It was shown in Hendrickson’s evidence that there was to the fullest knowledge of those in the boat a large number of people in the water, and that someone suggested that they should return and try to rescue them. Then it was proved that one of the ladies, who was shown to be Lady Duff Gordon, had said that the boat might be swamped if they went back, and Sir Cosmo Duff Gordon had admitted that this also represented his mental attitude at the time. He (Mr. Edwards) was going to say, and to say quite fearlessly, that a state of mind which could, while within the hearing of the screams of drowning people, think of so material a matter as the giving of money to replace kits was a state of mind which must have contemplated the fact that there was a possibility of rescuing some of these people, and the danger which might arise if this were attempted.
He was not going to say that there was a blunt, crude bargain, or a deal done with these men: “If you will not go back I will give you five pounds”; but he was going to suggest as a right and true inference that the money was mentioned at that time under these circumstances to give such a sense of ascendancy or supremacy to Sir Cosmo Duff Gordon in the boat that the view to which he
gave expression that they should not go back would weigh more with the men than if he had given it as a piece of good advice. There were twenty-eight places on that boat and no one on board had a right to save his own life by avoiding any possible risk involved in filling the vacant places. To say the least of it, it was most reprehensible that there should have been any offer of money calculated to influence the minds of the men or to seduce them from their duty.
From the address of the Attorney-General, Sir Rufus Isaacs, K. C., M. P. (Br. Inq.):
In regard to boat No. 1, I have to make some comment. This was the Emergency boat on the starboard side, which figured somewhat prominently in the inquiry on account of the evidence which was given in the first instance by Hendrickson, and which led to the calling of Sir Cosmo Duff Gordon. Any comment I have to make in regard to that boat is, I wish to say, not directed to Sir Cosmo or his wife. For my part, I would find it impossible to make any harsh or severe comment on the conduct of any woman who, in circumstances such as these, found herself on the water in a small boat on a dark night, and was afraid to go back because she thought there was a danger of being swamped. At any rate, I will
make no comment about that, and the only reason I am directing attention to No. 1 boat is that it is quite plain that it was lowered with twelve persons in it instead of forty. I am unable to say why it was that that boat was so lowered with only five passengers and seven of the crew on board, but that circumstance, I contend, shows the importance of boat drill.
As far as he knew from the evidence, no order was given as to the lowering of this boat. He regretted to say that he was quite unable to offer any explanation of it, but he could not see why the boat was lowered under the circumstances. The point of this part of the inquiry was two-fold—(1) the importance of a boat drill; (2) that you should have the men ready.
No doubt if there had been proper organization there would have been a greater possibility of saving more passengers. What struck one was that no one seemed to have known what his duty was or how many persons were to be placed in the boat before it was lowered. In all cases no boat had its complement of what could be carried on this particular night. The vessel was on her first passage, and if all her crew had been engaged on the next voyage no doubt things would have been better, but there was no satisfactory organization with regard to calling passengers
and getting them on deck. Had these boats had their full complement it would have been another matter, but the worst of them was this boat No. 1, because the man, Symons, in charge did not exercise his duty. No doubt he was told to stand by, but he went quite a distance away. His evidence was unsatisfactory, and gave no proper account why he did not return. He only said that he “exercised his discretion,” and that he was “master of the situation.” There was, however, no explanation why he went away and why he did not go back except that he would be swamped. That was no explanation. I can see no justification for his not going back. From the evidence, there were no people on the starboard deck at the time. They must have been mistaken in making that statement, because, as they knew, four more boats were subsequently lowered with a number of women and children. The capacity of this boat was forty. No other boat went away with so small a proportion as compared with its capacity, and there was no other boat which went away with a larger number of the crew. I confess it is a thing which I do not understand why that boat was lowered when she was. Speaking generally, the only boats that took their full quantity were four. One had to see what explanation could be given of that. In this particular
case it happened that the officers were afraid the boats would buckle. Then they said that no more women were available, and, thirdly, it was contemplated to go back. It struck one as very regrettable that the officers should have doubts in their minds on these points with regard to the capacity of the boats.
· · ·
End of part 42 of 55
Continue readingBOAT NO. 9.[31]
Starvard