| Author |
Message |
    
Jan C. Nielsen
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 5:48 am: | 
|
I acquired this book today at the local bookstore for half price. Although purported to be the "complete, definitive" story of the disaster, it mostly concentrates on the Senate hearings. Wade may be one of the first Illiad-Titanica bards out there . . . after, of course, Walter Lord. The book shows its age with all the dripping Greek Tragedian anaologies, and heavy Romanticism about Titanic.
Oddly enough, Wade seems to think Bruce Ismay was not treated fairly, and in fact, refers to him as a "scapegoat."
Indeed, his view of Ismay is somehow tied in with the "End Of A Dream" posture throughout the book. He says:
"In reducing the mistakes of the calamity to the evil of a few, society absolves itself of all culpability."
That's not true. The maliciousness of just a few highly placed persons can do a lot of damage. And the problem is not that society "absolves itself" but that society lets the few evil ones get away with it.
Wade sees the fault for the disaster as an "Anglo American" failure. "This Age of Security and Splendor automatically condones its grave social injustices; and responsibility for these conditions has yet to be owned completely by Anglo-americans in the late twentieth century."
Notably, Wade's book focuses significantly on African Americans, the women's sufferage movement, and other social injustice issues - - to bring them into the Titanic's realm by way of linking Titanic and social injustice to "the Guilded Age." He concluded, about Titanic, that "she is Hubris."
There's nothing wrong with focusing on social injustice. But in this context it's contrived. I could be wrong but it seems to me that Wade should have dispensed with the platitudes and just sat down, and imagined the night of April 14-15, 1912 from the vantagepoint of being in a lifeboat. Listening to those screams, the disappearance of the ship, and experiencing the inability to do anything about it, in effect, letting people (men, women and children) die - - Wade probably wouldn't see it as a "dream" or "splendor" at all. In all likelihood, as many survivors subsequently expressed about the disaster, he wouldn't have wanted to hear anything about it ever again.
Do I recommend the book? No, because there are books out there with a much less sublime, much more critical - - perspective on the Titanic disaster. Certain people are to blame, and I believe Ismay has always been one deserving candidate. |
Inger Sheil
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 1:34 am: |
|
Sorry, Jan - I have to flatly disagree with you on your assessment of Wade's work. I believe it's one of the finest pieces of research and most original (and influential) works ever written in the field.
Anyone who - as Wade did - has spent any time perusing the newspapers in the wake of the disaster would be aware of the vicious slandering of Ismay. While his exact role in the disaster is still a subject of considerable debate amongst historians, the media in the wake of the disaster was not interested in waiting to learn any of the facts - the simple fact he had survived saw him pilloried in the press, and the subject of the most outrageously exagerated reports.
Have you had a chance to read some of Paul Louden-Brown's work recently published in The Commutator? I'm not suggesting that Ismay was a little white lamb who was unjustly crucified, but there is - as Louden-Brown's work suggests - a good deal more to be understood about his character and actions.
Wade is by no means an Ismay apologist - his portrait of the man, while it moves away from the old Snidely-whiplash, moustache curling villain that so many Titanic 'buffs' would like him to be, is hardly flattering.
You quote Wade:
"In reducing the mistakes of the calamity to the evil of a few, society absolves itself of all culpability."
Then respond:
That's not true. The maliciousness of just a few highly placed persons can do a lot of damage. And the problem is not that society "absolves itself" but that society lets the few evil ones get away with it.
Wade is not saying that there are no culpable individuals in the world (see his treatment of Lord), or that it is not possible for the 'maliciousness' of individuals to do damage. However, he is arguing - very effectively, in my opinion - that society needs the hero/villain polarity. When a tragedy on the scale of the Titanic disaster happens, we need to believe that we can see the traces of the malign individual at work, rather than the far less traceable societal forces.
What Wade seeks to do - and accomplishes brilliantly - is place the disaster in the context of its age. Why were these vessels and their crews pushed as they were? Because the public demanded it. While the role of the individual in the disaster can and should be examined - and Wade does examine them - the social and historical mileau that shapes individuals and their actions is just as important, if not more so. Wade - like Marcus -has moved out of the box of popular history, with its stress on the hero/villain duality, and provides us with a much more profound understanding of the causes of the disaster as a result.
There's nothing wrong with focusing on social injustice. But in this context it's contrived
I see nothing contrived in Wade's interpretation whatsoever (if you want contrived, look to Gardiner's absurd switcheroo theory). Wade does what so many writers have failed to do - he presents us with the tools to understand the era and the individuals that moved in it and the forces that shaped them. He also provides us with valuable insight into the impact that the disaster had on American society and the dominant social issues of the day.
I could be wrong but it seems to me that Wade should have dispensed with the platitudes and just sat down, and imagined the night of April 14-15, 1912 from the vantagepoint of being in a lifeboat. Listening to those screams, the disappearance of the ship, and experiencing the inability to do anything about it, in effect, letting people (men, women and children) die - - Wade probably wouldn't see it as a "dream" or "splendor" at all. In all likelihood, as many survivors subsequently expressed about the disaster, he wouldn't have wanted to hear anything about it ever again.
Wade does not indulge in 'platitudes' - indeed, you've missed the point of the title and one of the main points of the book, which is an attack on romanticism. He is highly critical of what he calls a 'barrier of romanticism'. He also does just what you suggest - takes us to the brutal reality of people freezing to death in the mid-Atlantic, and does so in a very powerful way.
In attacking the romanticisation of the Titanic disaster, he writes:
Fibers of the rose-colored veil that fell over the catastrophe had been spun in the American newspapers as soon as the survivors had disembarked from the Carpathia. But these individual fibers seem to have been woven into an enduring fabric by the British press in response to nationally embarrassing bits of testimony wired over from the Senate hearings. George Bernard Shaw, an eyewitness to the romantic transformation, began questioning his own sanity
Wade goes on to quote a lengthy passage from Shaw, one of the most eloquent and emphatic of the 1912 deriders of the myths that had grown up around the disaster.
The book is not a comprehensive text dealing with all aspects of the disaster - much of it is told almost in cinematic 'flashbacks' to the words of survivors, framed around the American inquiry. Although it contains references to the British media and a brief piece on the British Inquiry, it is almost entirely concerned with American society and the impact of the disaster. And it is here that the books strenght lies - it pioneered a reappraisal of the American inquiry. I don't agree with all Wade's conclusions or interpretations of individuals (particularly some of those pertaining to Senator Smith - and I don't think it was necessary to have a whole biographical chapter devoted to him!), but I think it's a valid interpretation woven into a comprehensive whole. What's more, much of the work is original and valuable research - not a regurgitation of other people's work.
Do I recommend the book? Absolutely. Indeed, I would go so far as to say it is one of the top ten best titles in the field. Wade is one of the writers who has moved away from simplistic, reductive interpretations and apportionment of blame, and one of the few in a field dominated by writers of popular history who achieves a depth of sophistication in his approach and understanding of the disaster and its context. Even if you don't agree with his conclusions - and I don't agree with him in all respects - it's a remarkable and valuable contribution to the Titanic field. |
Tracy Smith
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 1:41 am: |
|
"he is arguing - very effectively, in my opinion - that society needs the hero/villain polarity. When a tragedy on the scale of the Titanic disaster happens, we need to believe that we can see the traces of the malign individual at work, rather than the far less traceable societal forces."
Very good point, Inger.
It reminds me of what Frank Strachan (US rep for Leyland Line) said to Stanley Lord, "They wanted a bloody goat, Lord, and they got you!" |
Shelley Dziedzic
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 2:44 am: |
|
Wade makes my top three- it was an inspiration to see an approach other than nuts and bolts, diagrams and blueprints and to consider Titanic- IDEA and not just thing. The prose is nearly poetic in some cases and a joy to devour. He brilliantly lifts the 1912 veils of illusion and complacency, one by one, and rings the curtain down on the end of the era and the dream.
Maiden Voyage by Geoffrey Marcus would probably come a close second. |
Dave Gittins
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 5:17 am: |
|
Wade is certainly among the great contributors to Titanic writing. I don't begrudge him his chapter on Smith, especially as there is no available biography of this intriguing character. I can't say that I agree with all his conclusions about him. I think the US enquiry was far more of a Smith ego trip than Wyn would admit. Overall though, definitely among the best books. |
Pat Cook
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 8:29 am: |
|
I would have to agree with Dave here. To me the book seemed so much of a validation of Senator Smith and his techniques that it literally detracted from it's content for me. Also, he would bring up a point and leave it hanging - such as early on mentioning that it was due to American Immigration Laws that Steerage passengers be locked away from the rest...and that was it. I kept waiting for him to mention this later during the hearings, make some valid point about how the British running the ship were blamed even though they were obeying U S laws, but he never did. Just my opinion here, of course.
Best regards,
Cook |
Allison Lane
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 12:21 pm: |
|
This is just my opinion for what it's worth, but I really enjoyed this book. I checked it out from the library last year and it's on my wish list of books to get if I had the money. I rather liked that it concentrated on the hearings, and overall I thought it was a fascinating read. Just my two cents.
Also, while I'm here, would anyone recommend The Only Way To Cross by John Maxtone-Graham? I'm sure I've seen it mentioned before. I ran across it at the library this weekend and at the moment am mildly regretting not checking it out.
-Allison L. |
Shelley Dziedzic
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Allison- RUN, do not walk to the library and check out ONLY WAY TO CROSS- with the Wade book and Maiden Voyage , it is my top three choice. I stayed up most of one night with a little booklight reading it. He has captured the romance of the transatlantic era as well as providing a fount of details beautifully wrapped in first-class prose and entertaining style. |
Parks Stephenson
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 5:03 pm: |
|
Here's my opinion...I think Wade characterises the Senate Inquiry better than anyone else out there. It is commonplace to characterise Senator Smith as a buffoon without understanding his motives, but while that may have sufficed for the press (especially the British press) in 1912, modern-day historians should strive to provide a deeper analysis. As far as hanging threads were concerned, well...those very threads were left hanging in 1912. Maybe Wade should have picked up those threads and given his own conclusions, but since he didn't, the door is left open for someone in our generation to pick up where he left off. One cannot answer all the questions, or there won't be any left for those researchers who follow. :-)
Parks |
Senan Molony
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 7:01 pm: |
|
The Only Way To Cross is a magnificent book...
I recently re-read Wade and enjoyed it all over again. It is a fine contribution, concentrating obviously on the US Senate Inquiry, but I have to agree with Jan, he should have stopped there.
To my mind, the tack-on bits about later
African-American views of the Titanic, and coverage of the Titanical skirmish between both sides on the Votes-for-Women controversy, have really no place in his overall premise. These sections at the end of the book really jar badly in my view.
The book was written by a Michigan professor about a home-state hero, William Alden Smith.
He provides some great insights, especially via Smith's private papers. So hats off there.
But it occasionally veers into the wildly hagiographical. A small enough fault - but Wade would have us believe that Smith never asked a single dumb question in the whole Inquiry.
Let us be honest: Smith was a remarkably strong figure and driven man (Wade argues superbly that he created the inquisitorial nature of modern expert-witness hearings on Capitol Hill - praise him for Watergate or blame him for Kenneth Starr as you will)... but the simple truth is that Smith *did* ask a whole lot of fool questions.
Give Smith every praise for getting the show on the road and mining a vast amount of material that helps to keep ET going, but he did also interrupt witnesses with a whole lot of loony misconceptions and pet obsessions.
They're there in the transcript for anyone to see.
Mind you, there's no doubt - as Wade points out - that Smith's Inquiry was good value. It cost a fraction of the British whitewash.
As for *some* of Smith's conclusions, they're embarrassing. His final report has many many mistakes (okay, so he rushed writing it) yet some of the misrepresentations of evidence are very serious indeed.
And his final speech... seeing the Titanic "again instinct with life" etc... is in some parts simply squirmable.
So, not quite a "buffoon", Parks, as the British papers painted him for their own reasons, but not quite Solomon either - sorry, Wade.
Instead you perhaps could argue that the same indeflectable sense of purpose that allowed him set up the Inquiry in the first place would paradoxically also blinker him in the way he drove the evidence along his own particular path.
But as to the Wade book itself - very readable, thought-provoking and unusually informative.
* Some might also think the Taft/Roosevelt "Bull Moose" stuff also rather irrelevant, but I thought it was interesting. Good background as to how Smith could act while the rest of Washington was distracted or just inert. |
Michael H. Standart
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 7:58 pm: |
|
I'll add my vote for Maxtone-Graham's "The Only Way To Cross" as well as his later "Liners To The Sun". Buy 'em! They're worth it.
In re Wyn Craig Wade, while one can argue that some of his little tangents get a bit tiresome, I found them fascinating. Nothing ever happens in a vacuum and in order to understand history, you HAVE to understand it's figures as well as the attitudes of the time. In popular history, it's all too easy to go off into the simplistic, and portrayals of both Bruce Ismay and Captain Lord do that all the time. Wade avoids that pitfall, and his bio of Senator Smith helps us understand the man better, to say nothing of why he ran the investigation as he did. Wade's book is one of the top in the feild of Titanic research.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart |
Tracy Smith
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 11:49 pm: |
|
I loved "The Only Way to Cross" as well. If I'm not mistaken, didn't Maxtone-Graham help put together Violet Jessop's book? |
Senan Molony
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Yessop. |
Inger Sheil
| | Posted on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 10:27 am: |
|
Agreeing here with Cook and Sen re Wade's Smith hagiography - selective decisions on which portions of testimony to quote leaves a different impression to reading the evidence in its entirety. Wade firmly believes the man had a grand plan, and never asked a stupid question. I believe Smith certainly had a direction he was moving in, but that doesn't mean that every question asked was clever and cooly caluculated. Frequently I got the impression he was simply fishing (and some of his fishing was fruitful). A little more sympathy with some of the men who had been through a horrific ordeal would not have gone astray on Wade's part, either. Adversarial questioning of some of the witnesses didn't help matters either, but Wade skims fairly lightly over this.
However, it certainly gave us a fresh look at the American inquiry! I don't agree with all his conclusions, but I respect his original research. |
Jan C. Nielsen
| | Posted on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 2:57 pm: |
|
Hi Inger,
That's a nice piece you wrote, and I compliment you on it. But, without disputing all the points raised, consider this one:
the social and historical mileau that shapes individuals and their actions is just as important, if not more so. Wade - like Marcus -has moved out of the box of popular history, with its stress on the hero/villain duality, and provides us with a much more profound understanding of the causes of the disaster as a result.
Isn't this just another way of arguing that Wade is telling us, "Well, society gets the ship disasters it deserves." I think it is.
In the case of race and sexism, such a statement about disasters may be a fair one - - because those problems rested upon widespread rank-and-file belief systems about a race, or about women. Society was indeed to blame for the disasterous race riots, race hatred and race crimes, and battering that women suffered for centuries - - because widespread attitudes and behavior among members of American society condoned all of that.
But Titanic is a singular event. Wade tries to make it like race and sexism by suggesting it is a watershed event for the "Guilded Age." I think it's a very tenuous connection. More likely, he's trying to make something broader and more romantic out of the ship's sinking than is actually there - - which is my main problem with the book.
Thanks, everyone for your feedback. |
Jan C. Nielsen
| | Posted on Thursday, November 1, 2001 - 5:06 am: |
|
Wyn Craig Wade has moved from writing about "Titanic" to writing about the Ku Klux Klan. I saw him on Discovery Channel discussing the Klan, this evening. Of course, like any sane individual, he's very critical of that organization. He wrote a book called "Fiery" something about the way the KKK maintains itself today. I wonder why Wyn Craig Wade became so interested in the likes of those guys? Has anyone read this book? When was it published? Does anyone know what other subjects Wade has written about? |
Kyrila Scully
| | Posted on Thursday, November 1, 2001 - 11:36 am: |
|
He's pretty brave to tackle the KKK. I hope he doesn't live near any of them! We might keep him in our prayers. Those boys don't take kindly to books being written about them.
But you know, that reminds me of something. Walter Lord has written about other subjects, too, particularly the Civil War. Yet, he's only famous for his books about Titanic.
All the best,
Kyrila |
Randy B. Bigham
| | Posted on Thursday, November 1, 2001 - 4:33 pm: |
|
Jan,
Wyn Craig Wade is a social psychologist with a special interest in US cultural history. I guess it's not surprising he'd eventually be drawn to the most devisive, controversial aspect of American life - racism. His book is called The Fiery Cross: The Ku Klux Klan in America. Its astounding but disturbing, as only this subject can be. As you recall he touched a bit on the subject of racial prejudice in End of a Dream.
He's also been interviewed on a variety of other historical subjects - including the Civil War - for several recent documentaries. I like his work a lot.
Randy |
Kris Muhvic
| | Posted on Friday, November 2, 2001 - 2:42 am: |
|
Hello all-
Saw this revival of this thread and have been musing about it. There are few things I feel a need to talk about here, and I hope it can be of some help.
Mr. Wade's "End of a Dream" was probably the 2nd book I got about Titanic...after Lord's ANTR. I was about ten years old at the time, and alot of it went over my head. But it is still one of those "re-reads" over the years. And yes, the social commentaries in that book may very well have inspired myself to persue my own historical searchings.
Now, with his work on the KKK. It does not surprise me that he would take on this subject. Like myself, a Michigander, he is probably all too well aware of the racial divide that has been an unfortunate history in our mitten state. (I wish to make clear that I am only talking about the MI. scene...I am not so bold or educated to speak of these matters in other regions).
For a modern history, I'll try to be quick. Once the Ford auto-factories started their $5 a day workday in 1914, there was a large exodus of Southern workers...black and white...who found themselves living together, and among the "we're already here" folks. Now of course there was tension, which culminated in a race-war during WWII. Like a pot that boils over, the heat is turned off, but the mess on the stove was left. So enters the Detroit Riots in 1967. Which, unfortunatly, a generation later, we in south-eastern Mi. are still suffering the residual effects from. I have relatives who told me stories of having to manouever around Tanks to get home from work or school. Today it's one of those "everyone knows, but nobody talks about it" sort of thing. An un-healed wound, that someone like myself, born a couple years later, finds all this baggage being lugged around, and not really knowing why.
All in the past? Not really. I have discovered that history does not easily go away. And that is what Mr. Wade, I believe, is trying to convey in current and past works.
As for the Klan? Well, from my understanding, they most reside in northern, rural outreaches of the state. Which is amusing to me: since they hate black people so much, what better way to fight your enemies than...run away from them! What idiotic cowards...so dismissable (OK, got personal, forgive me!).
So much for being quick...just wanted to share some thoughts.
Yours-
Kris |
Logan Geen
| | Posted on Thursday, December 6, 2001 - 11:15 pm: |
|
This is actually a very interesting book. It goes along well with the book that contains the transcripts from the American Inquiry. I thought Wade did a good job. |
John M. Feeney
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2002 - 5:00 am: |
|
Inger (and Colleen): Found it! Finally.
While scoping out my "Senator Cary" post elsewhere, I ran across that excerpt I'd referred to previously -- the one I couldn't relocate. It's on page 221 of the Revised (1986) edition -- second page of Chapter 14, "Dies Irae". I'm including some surrounding text solely for "ulterior" motives: ;^)
Quote:The rumor [complaints about the detention of the crew] to which Mr. Scott alluded arose from a publicized visit the Titanic's crewmen had made to Ambassador Bryce Wednesday evening. Bryce was leaving for New Zealand Thursday morning, and according to Officer Lightoller, the men had merely called on the ambassador prior to his departure simply as British subjects calling on the official representative of their country. Concerning the rumor of complaints, Lightoller said to the press, "I am sorry such a report has gone abroad."
In his autobiography, published twenty-three years later, however, Lightoller said that near the end, the crewmen "refused to have anything more to do with the enquiry" and it "was only with the greatest difficulty I was able to bring peace into the camp." Not so, said the Michigan Minutemen, whose duties involved eavesdropping on the crewmen. O'Donnell and Carroll maintained that the officers were indeed expressing annoyance at being detained in Washington and at Smith's nautical ignorance -- but the crewmen were posing no problems at all. They were now on a first-name basis with Senator Smith, who had managed to get Congress to raise their witness fees from three to four dollars per day. [emphasis mine] Wednesday evening they were followed all over the capital by a reporter from the Milwaukee Journal who said "they seemed to be enjoying the time of their lives."
Taken in that context -- Lightoller's much later assertions in his autobiography, versus presumably contemporary accounts from O'Donnell and Carroll, as well as Lightoller himself -- that dismissal doesn't seem unreasonable. (I'm not saying there couldn't have been more involved than meets the eye, but ...)
Anyway, the crew should have had something to cheer about there. They had been well-treated in the U.S., as far as I know, and Smith even got them a 25% raise. (Four dollars a day -- short of a Pound -- ain't bad in 1912 terms.) But I can also understand that later memory would still not tend to construe that "captive" series of events -- including the pressures of testifying -- as anything generally resembling a jolly time. Understandably. (Not dismissing your own observations here -- just again considering the potential vagaries of memory.)
Cheers,
John |
Inger Sheil
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2002 - 8:55 pm: |
|
Unfortunately, Wade doesn't source the O'Donnell and Carroll reports so we have little means of assessing them beyond taking Wade's interpretation at face value. We don't even know for certain that these are reports dating to 1912. There is contemporary source material supporting the idea that the Titanic's crew were understandably keen to return to the UK and became more so as time wore on (just flipping through newspapers and I came across The Evening Star of the 25 April, with a fairly candid shot of two of the victualling crew and the caption 'A Crawford and A Cunningham, Titanic Stewards who are anxious to return to England'). Towards the end - the time Lightoller was speaking about - there may well have been baulking among the Titanic's crew. Perhaps not wholesale mutiny, but discontent at continued detainment at the pleasure of the Committee. I'd be interested in seeing any accounts from the crew (as opposed to those filtered through Smith's agents) expressing such glowing appreciation for the Senator...on the other hand, we have views like that expressed by Hichens, who thought some of the questions posed in Washington "very absurd".
Lightoller was certainly due for a reappraisal before Wade came along - he'd been treated rather uncritically before 'End of a Dream', an apotheosis that reached its peak in the filmed version of ANTR. Wade was quite justified in subjecting him to critical scrutiny. However, I can't help but feel that Wade swung the pendulum a bit too far in some instances. Take, for example, the following from p. 125:
Lightoller's answers were as terse as possible, and a number of reporters felt he was definitely bent on protecting the interests of Ismay and the White Star Line. After all, as the highest-ranking officer to have survived the disaster, Lightoller's chances for promotion in the line had been substantially increased.
The first part is perhaps a fair observation (although perhaps it might have been balanced by the point that a number of other reporters found Lightoller a very impressive witness and didn't feel he was acting from self-interest). The second line, however, I find quite unfair and even cruel in its implications. I have seen no contemporary source that supports the idea that Lightoller saw the death of his colleagues as an opportunity, which is the clear insinuation. One of those bodies that it is implied Lightoller was anxious to clamber over was that of his good friend, William Murdoch.
Lightoller was so deeply affected by the death of his colleagues that night that he kept in touch with their families for long years afterwards, his concern extended far beyond contemporary expectations of a condolance note with a few observations on 'what I know of how 'X' died'. It extended to protracted correspondence and even personal visits far beyond 1912.
I'd be intrigued to see Wade's specific sources for his countering of Lightoller's recollection of events - contemporary manuscript? Later recollection? Quite possibly Lightoller's memory on this (as on several other points) was understandably hazy by the time he wrote his memoirs. I do think it is a distinct possibility, however, that he did act to induce cooperation from at least some crewman who were begining to express dissatisfaction with their detainment. No doubt Washington was a lark for some. For others, with families anxiously waiting for them at home, and given that they had just undergone a traumatic experience, I think it would be perfectly understandable if they expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the duration of the inquiry.
I've no doubt that Lowe was one of the officers who was quite ready to openly revolt. He had very personal reasons for objecting most strongly to the charge that he had been drinking (although almost any man who had been accused of drinking while on duty would find it objectionable), and was keen to take the matter further and find out who had originally made the allegation. Word of this reached Smith, and issued his 'clarification' at the same time he released Lowe and his fellow officers (save, briefly, Boxhall).
~ Inger |
John M. Feeney
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2002 - 11:10 pm: |
|
Hi, Inger: Oh, I admit the story's not all out there. (And I'm definitely on your side regarding sources.) I *assume* from Wade's context that O'Donnell's and Carroll's rebuttals were contemporaneous to those events -- it does seem unlikely they'd have written this in some later memoirs -- but I don't know for a fact. To be entirely fair, Lightoller's 1912 response -- "I am sorry such a report has gone abroad" -- which Wade seemingly makes much of, is in my mind cleverly diplomatically vague. (He never actually said it wasn't so; he just said he was sorry it was broadcast!) ;^)
Like I said, there may well be more to this than meets the eye. (In essence, I'm not defending Wade's facts or sources there, just his apparent logic.)
One apolitical observation I'd like to throw in -- versus the merely partisan argument of "regular crew for, Officers against" -- is that it would perhaps be understandable that the normally lower-paid members of the crew receiving witness fees would likely be more contented (financially) than the higher ranks through economic perspective alone. Not knowing exactly how this fee system worked in practice (and not having a "Return of Expenses" document, as in the British Inquiry, with which to investigate it), I can't say with any certainty whether this fee was paid daily, even for standby status, or just on testifying days. But either way, the *relative* worth of that 4 dollars per day to an individual would depend largely on his normal fiscal expectations ($4 / day = £ 0, 16, 10 / day = £ 25, 5, 3 / month).
This isn't said in an attempt to reduce everything to a financial bottom line. But it would shed some light on the varying degree of satisfaction imparted by those fees. A per diem equivalent to £25, 5 per month would be quite lucrative indeed for some of those crew members!
Regarding Wade's wording you cited above, it does seem an unfortunate choice. It can be construed as somewhat less cruel than you've taken it, but there is unmistakable innuendo there. (Though I wouldn't stretch so far as 'clambering over the bodies of his friends'.)
For others, with families anxiously waiting for them at home, and given that they had just undergone a traumatic experience, I think it would be perfectly understandable if they expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the duration of the inquiry.
Agreed. Lowe's indignation at the implication that he might have been drunk is also quite understandable under the circumstances, but the question itself wasn't totally unreasonable. It did have some basis in fact, since one of the affidavits had suggested this possibility. Here I think Smith was just covering all the bases, though I can also fully understand Lowe's personal reaction.
Cheers,
John |
Inger Sheil
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 15, 2002 - 10:15 pm: |
|
John - Oddly enough, when I was looking through piles of copies for the 'Smithisms' article to transcribe for you (which still eludes recovery from the stacks of papers), I came across a piece dealing with expenses. Will have to see if by some miracle I can find it again and see if it has anything relevant on the question of how the witness fees were distributed...I have a vague recollection that there might have been a helpful nugget or two of information. Lowe was certainly a man to keep an eye on his funds - fiscal prudence was a distinct trait (following his agreements from the time he was an OS, it's clear that the stereotype of the freespending sailor is inapplicable in his case). As an ot aside, I seem to recall that he ran into Lord one day whilst going in to see Smith or his agents about expenses, and I've seen notations he made relating to the Brit inq calculating transport fees etc. No doubt the officers had other reasons as well for wanting to get home as soon as possible - their American experience was without precedent. Back home, they knew that had to face a BoT inquiry (at least two of them had already been through this experience in relation to other shipping accidents - both Lightoller and Lowe had testified at earlier inquiries). What would be the outcome in America, however? Lightoller and Boxhall narrowly escaped having subpoenas slapped on them as soon as they were released from giving evidence in Washington which required them to give evidence in a civil case - they escaped due to a technicality (they couldn't be subpoened for 24 hours after the Senate released them as witnesses, and an agreement was reached by their legal representatives that they would return to America at a later date to give evidence). Boxhall was also suffering from pleurisy. Nor is the division clearly along the lines of officers / rest of crew - Crawford and Cunningham, at least, expressed to the papers their anxiety to return home. Crew with families would be understandably keen to return home after such tragic events...perhaps some enjoyed something of a paid holiday, but for others suffering the trauma of the accident it probably wasn't the happiest of times, and home would have been calling.
Smith was certainly keen on pursuing the angle of intoxication among the crew, largely due to the allegations raised by 'Luis Klein'. Curiously, I don't recall Wade addressing this angle of the investigation, and Klein doesn't show up in the index - did he refer to it at all? There was considerable effort expended on tracking down Klein and getting him to Washington, and at one point they even had him in a holding cell where he insisted - in spite of WS's denials that he was a crewman at all - that he had sailed aboard Titanic, and was ready to expose intoxication among the senior crew, even pointing out the drunk officers. Of course, he "did a runner" right before he was due to testify! Smith eventually decided to let it go. It does, however, seem to have prompted some of his questions to the crew about whether or not there was drinking aboard, and questions like those he put to Boxhall about whether or not he was temperate.
In Lowe's case, however, he seems to have responding to a specific note handed to him during the course of Lowe's testimony. I wonder if perhaps it originated with Daisy Minahan via one of her State reps (hence the fact that the note came from a man)? It would explain why Minahan was asked to submit an affidavit which dates to after Smith had issued his clarification re the question of Lowe and drinking. Other passengers in Lowe's flotilla of boats - including Rene Harris, who had expressed a desire to testify and who felt so strongly about Lowe she later gave an interview explicity to talk about him - were not asked to give evidence. It's speculation on my part, but I wonder if Smith included Minahan's affidavit as a justification for questioning Lowe about his sobriety.
Reading Wade, it's difficult to gain an appreciation of just how strongly Lowe felt about the charge - he was very visibly angry. Of course, Smith had no way of knowing what a sore spot he'd touched upon - it's simply unfortunate for both men that the charge was made and had to be addressed, as it further soured an already difficult situation between two the two men.
Amusingly, Lowe doesn't seem to have objected to the fact that Smith's later clarification had him 'intemperate' in general temperament, not intemperate with regards to alcohol. It was the charge of drinking Lowe found objectionable (this was a man who didn't even want to be called a 'teetotaller', declaring that he wasn't a teetotaller but rather a total abstainer). He would have freely owned up to the charge of being intemperate in language - use of highseas invective was by then a thoroughly ingrained habit that remained with him for the rest of his life.
~ Inger |
John M. Feeney
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 16, 2002 - 4:50 am: |
|
Inger: I was sure Wade had at least touched on the Louis Klein affair but, like you, I couldn't locate it in the Index. I did ultimately spot the passage -- it's on page 157 in the Revised Edition, in Chapter 10 ("Back in Washington"). But from the looks of it, it doesn't seem likely that Klein was mistaken as a credible source for anything!:
Quote:After Jusserand left, Smith was called on by the Austro-Hungarian ambassador, Baron Hengelmuller ... [who] also had an extraordinary "lead" for the chairman. A Hungarian sailor, Louis Klein, had shipped aboard the Titanic and was now in Cleveland, where he had made the shocking disclosure that the Titanic's lookout had been asleep in the crow's nest and the crewman intoxicated; stewards had even served the men on the bridge champagne left over from one of the first cabin's parties. Smith thought the accusation highly improbable, if not ridiculous, but diplomatic tact necessitated his assuring the baron that he would look into it fully. Smith gave the assignment to his Michigan Minutemen, and Ed O'Donnell was sent packing to Cleveland. It would turn out that Louis Klein had never even been aboard the Titanic.
So, While I suspect Klein's assertions could have contributed to those questions being raised, I doubt Klein was in any way the "reliable source" or sole basis for the questioning. (Klein certainly wasn't the man who handed the accusatory note to Smith that led to Smith's questioning of Lowe about his sobriety.)
But then Lowe wasn't alone in this, either. Other officers, including Boxhall, were also interrogated regarding their temperance. One of the First Cabin passengers, as I recall, specifically attested in her affidavit to Captain Smith's sobriety after the Widener's dinner party which he attended. So the possibility of inebriation must have been a fairly generalized curiosity.
In all fairness to those involved, I have to point out that once such allegations *were* raised, any investigator worth his salt would surely check into them. Feathers might well be ruffled by the presumed insinuation, but such questions *must* be asked if meaningful answers are to be gotten from an inquiry of this type. (In Smith's shoes, I'd probably do the same myself, as I suspect most here would.)
Cheers,
John |
Inger Sheil
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 16, 2002 - 8:03 am: |
|
John - I've had my suspicions that the index for "End of a Dream" wasn't entirely satisfactory! I seem to recall that the Cleveland Plain Dealer (or one of the Cleveland Papers) gave quite a bit of coverage to the story - there was even a photo of Klein that I've rather regretted not copying since. Wade's treatment of the incident isn't very full (and once again, I'd love to see the sources on which he's basing Smith's reactions - in this case, his non-acceptance of Klein). Klein gave his story to the newspapers - perhaps he also took it to the ambassador, but it was widely reported in the newspapers first. Wade glosses over the story's conclusion - even while Klein was being held in Cleveland, the papers were already questioning his version of events. WS had already made it clear he wasn't a crewman, but Klein still insisted he was telling the truth. Was it really necessary to call him to Washington? If Smith had such strong doubts about his truthfullness (and if he did, he wasn't the only one - even the press was skeptical), surely the ambassador was a reasonable enough man that if it was pointed out to him that Klein wasn't a crewman it would be enough to defuse any potential international incident?  . Matters took on an element of farce when Klein was finally called before the committee...only to have vanished.
I suspect that Klein was a source for some lines of questioning (such as the one put to a steward about 'banquets'), but - as stated above - I think it more likely that Daisy Minahan was the direct source for the question put to Lowe. I'm not suggesting the question shouldn't have been asked - it's just unfortunate that this particular allegation had to go to Lowe as it hit a particular nerve, and matters were already tense between the officer and the Senator. I'm not taking sides on this issue - as I said above, it was unfortunate that the charge had been made and had to be addressed.
I did also mention above a similar (if far less specific) question along these lines put to Boxhall. I seem to have seen two photos of Boxhall with what *might* be alcohol in front of him - one is possible a bottle of stout, and in another he seems to have a wine glass. When asking about the latter with the lady who owns the photograph, she said that she suspected it would have been water - she knew Joseph Boxhall well, and he was indeed a very temperate man.
I'm not interested in fault finding with either Smith or his witnesses...like you, I'm intrigued by the dynamics of the inquiry and the interaction of the committee members and the witnesses. There was considerably more to some responses that were given than is suggested in either the transcripts or even in Wade. Lowe's reply on the question of whether he'd been drinking wasn't born of banter or amusement at the remark...it stemmed from from personal pain and personal conviction. Smith could not have known it and could not have been prepared for the vehemence of Lowe's response, but unfortunately from Lowe's point of view there could hardly have been a more provocative allegation put to him.
~ Inger |
Inger Sheil
| | Posted on Friday, January 18, 2002 - 3:25 pm: |
|
Here's that fragment about expenses, part of a slightly longer article about the wrapping up of the inquiry (Washington Post, 2 May 1912):
The Senate so far has paid out $2,358 for witness fees and mileage expnese of those who have been here to testify. This amount covers the expenses up to date of all except the members of the committee, and witnesses Ismay, Franklin, Boxhall and Lowe, whose accounts will be closed immediately. All receive $3 a day witness fee, and the committee added $1 for the sailors who were detained in Washington.
No further effort will be made to find Louis Klein, who was brought here from Cleveland, and disappeared before being called to testify about a story he told in an interview regarding the disaster. The committee leared that Klein was not aboard the vessel.
Interesting that Lowe's account hadn't yet been closed - Franklin and Ismay one can understand, and Boxhall had to conclude his evidence when the pleurisy allowed it. But why is Lowe included in this group? There's no mention of him being detained - he was released at the same time as Lightoller and Pitman (only Boxhall was slightly delayed by the need to finish his testimony).
~ Inger |
John M. Feeney
| | Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2002 - 12:08 am: |
|
Hi, Inger: Thanks for that further excerpt! The only thing I came up with that would explain the continuation of Lowe's "account" until the news of May 2 was that diplomatic apology made to the Italian ambassador (US 1100, following). It wasn't officially entered into the evidence until U.S. Day 15 (May 9), but it was already "signed and sealed" at Washington, D.C. on April 30.
So, give the papers a day to catch up, and voila! -- the news hits the street the morning of May 2.
I don't know for sure if this was the basis. But it does fit the timing. Did Lowe receive a further stipend for this task, or continue to receive witness fees until its completion? (Smith said that Lowe wanted this in the record and the Ambassador wanted this in the record. But perhaps the U.S. government *also* strongly wanted this in the record, enough to keep Lowe on "retainer".) Or, was the dormant account simply left open pending any possible recall while Lowe was still in the country?
Quote:This is to certify that I, Harold Godfrey Lowe, of Penrallt Barmouth, fifth officer of the late steamship Titanic, in my testimony at the Senate of the United States stated that I fired shots to prevent Italian immigrants from jumping into my lifeboat.
I do thereby cancel the word "Italian" and substitute the words "immigrants belonging to Latin races." In fact, I did not mean to infer that they were especially Italians, because I could only judge from their general appearance and complexion, and therefore I only meant to imply that they were of the types of the Latin races. In any case, I did not intend to cast any reflection on the Italian nation.
This is the real truth, and therefore I feel honored to give out the present statement.
H. G. LOWE,
Fifth Officer late "Titanic."
WASHINGTON, D. C., April 30, 1912. [On the reverse.] The declaration on the other side was made and confirmed this day by Harold Godfrey Lowe, fifth officer of the late Steamship Titanic, in my presence and in the presence of Signor Guido di Vincenzo, secretary of the legal office of the royal embassy.
Washington, this 30th day of April, 1912.
The Royal Ambassador of Italy,
CUSANI.
[SEAL.]
THE SECRETARY OF THE LEGAL OFFICE OF THE ROYAL EMBASSY,
G. Di VINCENZO.
Cheers,
John |
John M. Feeney
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 23, 2002 - 7:16 pm: |
|
Inger: I located further reference on the Louis/Luis Klein story yesterday, and thought I'd pass it along. This comes from the New York Times, Monday, April 22, 1912:
Quote:TO HOLD ISMAY TO THE END.
Senate Committee Decides on That Course--Sailor's Weird Tale.
Special to the New York Times.
WASHINGTON, April 21
...
One of the wildest stories yet circulated in connection with the disaster has reached the committee from Cleveland. There a man describing himself as a Hungarian named Luis Klein, a surviving member of the crew of the Titanic, told a story which was so extraordinary that he was taken before the Hungarian Consul and Vice Consul. Cross-examination failed to vary his story. When it was wired to Chairman Smith he telegraphed to the local United States District Attorney to have Klein held and then obtained by telegraph the sanction of the Attorney General.
Officer on Watch Accused.
Klein's story is that the officer of the watch was asleep on deck when the Titanic smashed into the iceberg's projecting spur, and that the other officers and members of the crew were drunk or drinking. 'Wine', he said, was being passed out of the cabin, where an elaborate banquet was in progress. The festivities were at their height, he said, when the impact of the berg brought them to a sudden ending.
The report of the alleged Hungarian sailor is discredited here. It is pointed out that, even if it were conceivable that on a ship of the Titanic's type such lax discipline could prevail, there is absolutely no other testimony to bear it out. In support of his story, the Hungarian reports that he has a medal for life-saving presented to him by the Hamburg-American Line. He says he shipped on the Titanic at Liverpool, but that he has lost his papers.
...
Whatever else may be said, the allegations raised are certainly serious enough to warrant further investigation. Whether this in fact incited the interrogation of individual officers as to their sobriety is uncertain, but a good investigator would pursue this line of questioning. But taking into account the fact that Lowe was asleep at the time (in his cabin), it would seem that his questioning was inspired by other sources. Daisy Minahan is certainly a possibility.
Incidentally, in reviewing Reade's analysis of the Washington Inquiries, I'm forced to re-evaluate my "equal bile for all" assertion (raised during the Gill thread). I was pretty much aghast at the apparent level of preconception Reade imparted to his reporting of the Senators' questioning of Lord, Evans, and Gill. But then, being as he introduced that chapter with observations gleaned from The Daily Telegraph, I can only wonder if he indeed approached this with extreme bias.
It might be "the burden of a common language", but Reade, among other things, makes much of Senator Smith's "I wish you would" response to Lord's suggestion he tell his story, as if it were scathingly indicative of the Senator's naivete. To the contrary, my reading of that testimony suggests that the remark in fact suggest impatience with Lord's surficial "cooperativeness", and may indicate very early skepticism on the part of the Senators.
Again, I really think I observe malice aforethought as regards Reade's perceptions. And I believe the wholesale belittling of the Senators at one point -- '... nor Senator Simmons, who knew how to disenfranchise Negroes ..." (p. 217) -- strongly supports this contention. Regardless of Reade's personal "take", the Senate committee reached the same ultimate conclusions as Mersey's inquiry did, so obviously some savvy was in effect there.
Cheers,
John |
Dave Gittins
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 23, 2002 - 11:15 pm: |
|
It's almost impossible to be too belittling of Furnifold Simmons. He was a racist of the worst type. He took no part at all in the Titanic inquiry. Why he was on the committee is a bit of a mystery, as there was no way he was going to get along with Senator Smith. It may have been because he represented the extreme right of the Republicans, supposedly to give balance to the committee.
Simmons refused to work with Smith and said that this was because Smith was mis-using the inquiry for his own ends, which to some extent I believe he was. However Wyn Craig Wade says that this was just a smokescreen. Simmons simply hated Smith's guts. |
John M. Feeney
| | Posted on Thursday, January 24, 2002 - 12:53 am: |
|
Dave: Fair enough, I guess. I don't have the inside track on Simmons' personal political (and ethical) viewpoints. But here's the whole section I was referring to (page 217, actually):
Quote:"... Certainly, nobody listening to Lord could have suspected that whether or not Gill's report of the alleged intimidation of the quartermaster was true, Lord had in fact quietly obtained from both Second Officer Stone and Apprentice Gibson confidential reports of the rockets they had seen and of the disappearance of the strange, unresponsive ship. Senator Fletcher did not know that, though he knew about stock exchanges; nor Senator Burton, who knew about taxation; nor Senator Bourne, who thought up the parcel post in America; nor Senator Simmons, who knew how to disenfranchise Negroes; not even Senator Perkins, who knew a little about ships; and certainly not Senator Smith.
Now, I could be wrong, but this strikes me as a gratuitous slam of the worst kind. First (generally speaking), one could easily add to the end of that list, "... nor did the entire Mersey Commission, whose specific area of expertise was supposed to be ships and nautical matters." Second, the interrupted parrallelism of that sentence structure, ending in "and certainly not Senator Smith" strongly implies an insinuation that Smith knew absolutely nothing. There's very little fairness in that, since Smith had a good deal of expertise in, among other things, the railroads and anti-trust actions.
My point wasn't really to say that Simmons was unfairly lambasted, rather that all of the Senate committee was pretty scathingly attacked in that passage and elsewhere. That is Reade's tenor throughout, or at least so it seems to me, as regards the Senate Investigation. And he's fairly merciless at some points. (His reaction to Smith's "I wish you would" seems totally off the wall; but I'll post further excerpts of this if desired.) There's just an unmistakable aura of contempt infused there, and though this doesn't diminish my esteem for his overall analysis of the Californian affair, such personal rancor seems unmerited.
As for Simmons himself, I don't doubt what you're saying in the least. He was, after all, the man who apparently contributed nothing, then dropped out readily in "protest". (I recall from Wade's book the assertion that the reason he was recruited was to lend idealogical balance -- two conservatives, two moderates, and two liberals -- to the committee, as you suggested.)
Cheers,
John |
Dave Gittins
| | Posted on Thursday, January 24, 2002 - 2:26 am: |
|
Looking at the passage, I fancy that Reade is just trying to inject a bit of drama. All he's saying is that none of the senators knew of the existence of the two statements. Reade after all was a lawyer and maybe he thought he'd play to the jury with a rhetorical flourish. Soft singing of "I Get Carried Away". |
Michael Tennaro
| | Posted on Thursday, January 24, 2002 - 3:55 pm: |
|
John Feeney wrote:
It might be "the burden of a common language", but Reade, among other things, makes much of Senator Smith's "I wish you would" response to Lord's suggestion he tell his story, as if it were scathingly indicative of the Senator's naivete. To the contrary, my reading of that testimony suggests that the remark in fact suggest impatience with Lord's surficial "cooperativeness", and may indicate very early skepticism on the part of the Senators.
John,
this is the great frustration for me; the fatal flaw of the written word, as it were. the speaker's inflection cannot be recorded. depending on how Smith made the statement can imply a host of different shades of meaning. we simply don't know which shade he actually used. it makes understanding the inquiries even more of a challenge than they already are. |
Michael Tennaro
| | Posted on Thursday, January 24, 2002 - 4:03 pm: |
|
actually, my take on this comment by Smith was quite different from both Reade's and your interpretations. I took it as Smith just using that 'politically polite' phrasing that was popular. my thought was that Smith was just politely saying 'please do go on'. |
John M. Feeney
| | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2002 - 5:03 am: |
|
Hi, Michael: Interesting -- your take obviously makes three possible scenarios. I guess my "taken aback" stance at Reade's presumed indignation was that he seemed to go ballistic with one possible interpretation alone. (But then apparently, I might have done similar myself.) ;^)
Ah, reading between the lines is an art, not a science! And though I do think Reade was a bit rough on the Senators overall -- and I *still* don't entirely *understand* his interpretation of Smith's "I wish you would" -- that's just my opinion, and certainly not defensible as "fact".
Our atonal language (vs., say, Chinese -- where intonation changes the literal meaning of a word) can be amazingly stripped of nuance on paper! And formal transcripts, unlike our informal communications, almost NEVER employed "all caps", underscores, italics, or any other method to denote emphasis.
How interesting it would have been if recording technology had been sophisticated enough at the time to use readily at the Hearings! (I know phonographs were long in existence, but ...)
Cheers,
John |
Dave Gittins
| | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2002 - 9:33 am: |
|
I think you'll find that "I wish you would" is one of Smith's stock phrases. I've not got time to hunt for it, but I'm sure he uses it elsewhere. |
John M. Feeney
| | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2002 - 10:16 am: |
|
Hmm. Thanks, Dave. I'll do some searching at TIP to see if there's any apparent consistency in its implications.
Cheers,
John |
John M. Feeney
| | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2002 - 1:30 pm: |
|
Now that *was* an interesting exercise! Let me begin, of course, by saying that I'm well aware of the pitfall of the "curate's egg". ;^)
Having said that, my search revealed that while there are numerous examples of Smith's use of the open-ended phrase, "I wish you would ..." ("tell the committee ...", "describe ...", "try ...") within the context of questions and general instructions to witnesses, there are only *five* cases where it was employed unembellished as a response -- "I wish you would." And each of these is a situation which entails some potential for consternation:[US 111]:
Senator SMITH. I think I will just let you stand aside for a while, but we may want you in the morning; will you be here?
Mr. COTTAM. Yes, sir.
Senator SMITH. I should like to have you here as early as 10 o'clock to-morrow morning.
Mr. GRIGGS. Shall we try to bring down the junior operator of the Titanic at the same time?
Senator SMITH. I wish you would.
Mr. GRIGGS. We will have him here in the morning.
Senator SMITH. Thank you.
[US 191]:
Mr. FRANKLIN (reading):
ISMAY, Carpathia:
Have arranged forward crew Lapland, sailing Saturday, calling Plymouth. We all consider most unwise delay Cedric, considering all circumstances.
Senator SMITH. Who sent that?
Mr. FRANKLIN. It is signed "Franklin."
Senator SMITH. Did you get any reply to that?
Mr. FRANKLIN. I think the best way is just to read all these telegrams as they come.
Senator SMITH. I wish you would.
Mr. FRANKLIN. They are a little mixed up.
Senator SMITH. I want that story in the record.
Mr. FRANKLIN. The best way to do that is to read all these telegrams as they come here, and not say which is the reply.
Senator SMITH. All right. Just proceed, keeping in mind that we want the date and the person to whom and from whom the telegram was sent, and the signature.
[US 294-5]:
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. The clocks are set at midnight, but that is for the approximate noon position of the following day. Therefore Sunday noon the clocks will be accurate.
Senator SMITH. That is Mr. Lightoller, the second officer. [To the witness:] What was the Greenwich time compared with the ship's time?
Mr. PITMAN. I can not say.
Senator SMITH. Can you say, Mr. Lightoller?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. I can give you the Greenwich time.
Senator SMITH. I wish you would.
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. 5.47 - 2.20 - 5.47 Greenwich mean time: 2.20 apparent time of ship.
[US 728]:
Senator SMITH. Captain, did you see any distress signals on Sunday night, either rockets or the Morse signals?
Mr. LORD. No sir; I did not. The officer on watch saw some signals, but he said they were not distress signals.
Senator SMITH. They were not distress signals?
Mr. LORD. Not distress signals.
Senator SMITH. But he reported them?
Mr. LORD. To me. I think you had better let me tell you that story.
Senator SMITH. I wish you would.
[US 774-5]:
Mr. MOORE. ...
10.48. Frankfurt answers "M. G. Y."
Which is the Titanic.
Titanic gives his position and asks, "Are you coming to our assistance? D. F. T." -
That is the Frankfurt.
Asks, "What is the matter with you?" M. G. Y. replies, "We have struck iceberg and sinking. Please tell captain to come."
Senator SMITH. Let me see. "M. G. Y." was the message from the Titanic?
Mr. MOORE. Yes, sir. He has given me the code here, according to each ship, sir.
Senator SMITH. That indicates that the second message was a further call of distress?
Mr. MOORE. Yes, sir. Of course, the distress signal was going. We first caught it at 12.30 by our ship's time, sir.
Senator SMITH. You think we are getting what the Frankfurt got?
Mr. MOORE. These are the messages that crossed between the two ships, sir, which we caught.
Senator SMITH. The Titanic and the Frankfurt?
Mr. MOORE. Yes. I have a code here. Perhaps I had better give the names.
Senator SMITH. I wish you would. [continued] |
John M. Feeney
| | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2002 - 1:41 pm: |
|
In addition to those five (above), there are also three "close calls" -- similar, but not identical, and not quite as adamant, though even these can be construed as a softened but nevertheless somewhat perturbed response:[US 173]:
Senator SMITH. Have you a copy of that message?
Mr. FRANKLIN. I do not think I have a copy of it with me. I can have it sent over to you, Senator.
Senator SMITH. I wish you would do so.
[US 185-6]:
Senator SMITH. You can get the sailings - the bookings - of passengers, can you not?
Mr. FRANKLIN. We can get actual bookings. We can get the numbers from East Cort, Southampton, Cherbourg, and Queenstown in each class.
Senator SMITH. And the place that each was located on the ship, as far as stateroom is concerned, or otherwise?
Mr. FRANKLIN. I do not believe you can do that.
Senator SMITH. I wish you would try.
[US 1080-1]:
Mr. FARRELL. ... That information I received myself from one of the officials of the White Star Line, whose name I do not now recall. That has not much direct bearing.
Senator SMITH. I would like very much if we could identify the source of this information which came from the White Star. If you can think of the name of the man, I wish you would give it.
Mr. FARRELL. I can easily find out who the man was. ... I was referred at that time to the head of the insurance department, I believe, for this estimate on the cost of the Titanic and the amount of the insurance.
Senator SMITH. Who was he, do you recall?
Mr. FARRELL. I do not recall his name, but I can find out his name and let you know.
Senator SMITH. I wish you would do so. Naturally, the full flavor of those interludes is only gotten from a broader reading leading up to and around the excerpts. (Or in the case of Bride's first day absence, a knowledge of the background circumstances.) But those excerpts were lengthy enough already.
Anyway, FWIW, I do feel somewhat vindicated in my interpretation, though that doesn't make it the only possible one. Perhaps it's even a regional "Americanism", that kind of response. I grew up with similar retorts, and if I heard "I wish you would", I knew immediately it wasn't a "wish" at all! :-)
Cheers,
John |
Michael Tennaro
| | Posted on Friday, January 25, 2002 - 8:59 pm: |
|
Hi John,
awesome documentation of the pertinent sections of Smith's statements! thanks for going thru all that trouble.
your being taken aback by Reade's overreaction is reasonable. Reade obviously got very fired up about some of his declarations, not always to the benefit of his book.
as for Senator Smith, my take on him from Wade's book is that when he was in public, he was on-stage all the time. I don't know if he considered himself larger than life, but he certainly acted like he thought he did. every thing he says is dramatized to pull a reaction from his audience. certainly that extraordinary summation speech he made before Congress was way out there, even at a time when grandiose verbage was the norm.
all the best, Michael (TheManInBlack) |
John M. Feeney
| | Posted on Sunday, January 27, 2002 - 12:25 pm: |
|
Hi, Michael:
I've gotta say, for someone who once balked at PC's (me), I'm amazed at how indispensible they sometimes are! Surprisingly, that took relatively little time.
It's difficult to imagine the amount of labor that must have been involved in researching specific details of the hearings prior to the advent of things like T.I.P.'s online transcriptions. (A BIG nod of appreciation to Rob Ottmers and company! Always a treasure, that resource; as is ET, I might add.)
Re Smith's apparent "grandstanding", I don't know. He certainly was "prosaic" (to put it kindly) in his speech, but I have a tough time deciding whether he was merely swept up in the intensity of the whole affair. (In some ways, that chain of events reminds me of George W. Bush's stunning transformation in the aftermath of September 11.) But again, just my opinion.
Cheers,
John |
Dave Gittins
| | Posted on Sunday, January 27, 2002 - 10:10 pm: |
|
At least Smith wrote or improvised his own speeches. Actually, the speech by Senator Rayner that followed Smith's is at least as high-flown and possibly worse. |
Michael Tennaro
| | Posted on Thursday, January 31, 2002 - 5:53 pm: |
|
I meant no disrespect to Senator Smith with my comments. as Dave suggests, ornate oration was an aftform at this time. Smith was no more overboard in style than others in his position, but perhaps was more so in abundance? on the other hand, his famous "I don't like your face" retort on the Senate floor is a classic of succinctness! lol.
my fondness for Senator Smith is because he was such a blend of contradictions. on the one side, there is his meandering questioning style, his incredibly annoying habit of repeating almost every answer back to the subject as a question, and those amazing speeches. on the other, here is a man who spearheaded an impromptu investigation with almost no background in the subject. yet he succeeded in documenting the most complete survivor testimony on record, digested the enormous amount of data, and came up with a conclusion that hit on the real areas that needed correction.
all the best, Michael (TheManInBlack) |
|
