Humorous Episodes from the Californian Story

[John M. Feeney]

Admittedly this could be a very brief topic (sort of like "The Lighter Side of National Socialism"). However ... ;^)

On Tuesday afternoon, April 23, 1912, The Clinton Daily Item -- a small newspaper from a small town 34 miles from Boston -- initiated the opening of that can of worms now referred to as the Californian controversy with its publication of a startling article. For all its gravity, I'm nevertheless always mildly amused by the opener:

---

Quote:

CALIFORNIA (sic) REFUSED AID
Foreman Carpenter on Board this Boat Says Hundreds
Might have been Saved FROM THE TITANIC

According to a story told by the foreman carpenter on board the steamship California, that boat was within ten miles of the Titanic when that steamship met its fate, and but for the orders of the captain could have aided the Titanic and probably saved hundreds of passengers. This story was told to John H.G. Frazer of this town by the foreman carpenter who is a cousin of Mr. Frazer, but because of a possible outcome of these facts the name of the man is withheld.
...

---

​

---

---

Now, being as the Californian -- although that wiley name change does obscure the true identity of the ship -- only had ONE carpenter, W. F. McGregor, how effective really was that protective "cloak of secrecy"? At least when the Boston Globe essentially reprinted the story two days later, the man's identification had been softened to "One who said he was in the crew ... who was visiting relatives in Clinton last Sunday night". There we can take comfort in the belief that perhaps *many* crew members of the Californian had relatives living in Clinton whom they *all* just happened to be visiting on Sunday night. But had the Captain -- or anyone else, for that matter -- perchance followed up on the *original* story, what exactly was McGregor going to say: "Must be that OTHER carpenter!"?

Unless it was just his generalized indignation over the sighting of those rockets and the subsequent cover-up he'd attempted to reveal, we must assume that *somehow* the identity of the "mystery man" was cleverly uncovered. According to Leslie Reade, "When the Californian arrived back in Liverpool on 10 May, he took the balance of the pay due to him and left the ship and the sea for good."

Hmm...

 

[David Billnitzer]

Hi John:

I will add one episode here that I find particularly delicious; this is Leslie Harrison again. In the 1992 MAIB report, the investigators concluded:

"... the case has continued to divide opinion to this day, and has been argued strenuously both on Captain Lord's behalf and against him. Some of the arguments have been well-reasoned but some - on both sides - have been absurd and scurrilous." Note that they took pains to mention arguments on "both sides," but for some reason Leslie Harrison seems to think the investigators were singling him out. This was his response:

"The Oxford Dictionary defines the word 'scurrilous' as 'grossly or obscenely abusive... given to or expressed with low buffoonery.' As the one who since 1958 has borne primary responsibility for the presentation of Captain Lord's case, I most emphatically deny that any of the arguments I have put forward could possibly justify such a grossly offensive description..."

Priceless. Methinks he doth protest too much.

Dave Billnitzer

 

[John M. Feeney]

I have to admit, Dave -- that does sound very much like a classic example of "Open mouth; insert foot." ;^)

Cheers,
John

 

[John M. Feeney]

I have to admit -- they are few and far between. But this recent find from the pages of the 1965 MMSA Petition on Captain Lord's behalf has got to be the silliest damn thing I've ever read. It's certainly too rich to hide under a bushel basket, so I hope you all enjoy it as much as I did. (Still ROTFLOL.)

---

Quote:

... From an Inside Story Magazine by John Gregory (American Periodicals Corporation, New York, 1958?).

"A Night to Remember" ... reveals only some of the MINOR blunders relating to the tragedy, while brazenly omitting or kissing off the the most shocking scandals of all! These scandals, never exposed before, are four-fold. ... (3) The captain of a nearby ship who could have saved everybody aboard the Titanic lay stinking drunk in his cabin while 1,500 died in agony. ...

Add to the list of seaborne murderers the name of Captain John (sic!) Lord, master of the steamship Californian. This ship was only ten short miles away from the Titanic--close enough to see its lights--yet didn't show up at the disaster scene until it was too late. John Lord said he was asleep when the collision occurred, and that his radio operator had gone off duty ten minutes before the SOS was flashed from the luxury liner. Members of his crew saw a spectacular display of rockets fired as signals of distress from the Titanic, but according to Lord they didn't realise what the signals meant. Lord's testimony was completely disproved by a statement by Second Officer Stone--a statement that never got into print. He had gone to the Captain's cabin to report on the distress rockets and to get orders to rush to the Titanic's help. The Captain never gave such orders and for a good reason--he was too drunk to realise what his officer was telling him. Instead he ordered Stone in his best whiskey voice to "Forget thish (sic) whole thing and lemme sleep!"

---

​

---

---

What, no Pulitzer for this masterpiece?! (Actually I've gotta wonder if this "author" isn't the same guy who went on to found the National Enquirer. Weekly World News?) ;^)

And of course it's surprising that once this shocking expose' had been released, NO ONE realized the nearly perfect defense it proposed: "Oh, that was that *other* Captain Lord."

Cheers,
John

 

[Michael H. Standart]

But...but....but....it's in the newspapers!

It's...it's....it's just got to be true!

They can't print a lie! (And if anyone has a mind capable of believing a proposition like that, I've got a statue in New York harbour I'd like to sell you!)

Funny thing about Stone's testimonyy "not being printed". I peeked into my BOT transcript and had no problem finding it. Re-appearing ink perhaps?

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Tad G. Fitch]

Hey John, how are you doing? That has got to be one of the funniest things that I have read in quite a while. I wonder if the author of that piece is the same one who recently wrote in the Weekly World News that a collision with a UFO was the true cause of the Titanic disaster, haha! Thanks for posting that John. As always, good to hear from you.
All my best,
Tad Fitch

 

[John M. Feeney]

Mike: Did I ever tell you about that old friend's wife who related some fantastic story -- about a two-headed baby, or something like that -- from the National Enquirer to me. I thought she was pulling my leg, so I snorted back, "Well, after all, it is from the National Enquirer!" ;^)

She got deadly silent for a second, then glared icily at me, and said (I kid you not!), "Well, they couldn't print it if it wasn't true!!" Arrrggh! (It was a truly terrifying experience in the surreal.)

Ah, but of course as our esteemed investigative journalist -- hey, it was from Inside Story! -- pointed out, Stone's disproof was in that statement that *didn't* make it into print! No doubt the author got this from a "reliable" source, though -- maybe Henrik Naess of Samson fame; or a fellow tabloid journalist who had sat in at the Inquiry.
("Did he say 'shunk' or 'drunk'? Shonofagun!") ;^)

Tad: Glad you liked it, too. I couldn't believe that punch line myself, spelling and all --"Forget thish ..." (hiccup!). If the writer didn't progress well in his tabloid career, he probably went on to invent the "lampshade hat" party gag!

Cheers,
John

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Hi John. Don'tcha just love those "reliable" sources? You know the ones I'm talking about; the ones that are never named.

Cordially,
Michael H. "Curmudgeon" Standart

 

[Gregg Wigen]

Everything I've read suggests that Lord was not a drinking man.

Regardless, rockets were seen from the Californian and Lord didn't even take the painfully minimal effort necessary to order his wireless operator out of bed.

Even if you're a Lord supporter you'd have great difficulty getting away from the fact that virtually every officer on the Californian was negligent.

 

[Noel F. Jones]

"Even if you're a Lord supporter you'd have great difficulty getting away from the fact that virtually every officer on the Californian was negligent."

As I understand it, Captain Lord had apparently established before his W/O went off watch that there were no radio-equipped vessels in the vicinity other than Titanic.

Furthermore he had stopped his vessel by reason of ice when other vessels were (negligently?) proceeding full away.

Furthermore when a vessel firing rockets was reported to him he established by visual examination that it was not the Titanic.

Furthermore, he then ordered the watch to attempt to call her up via Morse signalling; apparently this went on for several hours without response.

Furthermore, the watch duly reported the apparant evolutions of the object vessel, as and when.

Apparently the respective vessels were too far apart for 'morsing' to be effective?

Allegedly the Titanic was within sight of Californian but Californian was not evidentially within sight of Titanic. That is the paradox with which you must conjure.

As soon as Californian became aware of the predicament of Titanic she was got underway to assist with due dispatch and at some considerable risk of terminal damage by field ice.

None of that sounds like 'negligence' to me; indeed it could very well construe as prudent seamanship. "Lord supporter" or no, I have no difficulty at all in getting away from your 'fact'.

Noel

 

[Gregg Wigen]

Noel,

No radio equipped vessels in the area 'other than the Titanic'... so your point is...?

When a vessel firing rockets was seen, Lord ordered that a morse signal be used, despite the fact that there was little question that his responsibility was to determine the status of the vessel firing the rockets (especially if there was only supposed to be one radio-equipped vessel in the area)... As the other ship failed to respond to the morse lamps... I guess it's no big deal eh?

My personal thoughts aside, when rockets 'throwing stars' were seen, Lord's response should have been clear. It was well known by the crew members who observed the rockets that a rocket 'throwing stars' was a distress signal. And yet... Lord did nothing, other than to mention nothing about rockets in the log, subsequently require affidavits from his officers regarding their observations that night and deny for some time that any rockets had been seen until the story essentially 'leaked'.

Obviously a great deal of research has been done on this subject and excellent points have been made on both sides, however in respect to the crew and Lord's well documented non-response to the rockets I personally can't see too much wiggle room here for a non-negligence argument.

 

[Tad G. Fitch]

Hi Noel, how are you?

You wrote:
"Furthermore he had stopped his vessel by reason of ice when other vessels were (negligently?) proceeding full away."

I completely agree, Captain Lord acted very prudently by stopping rather than trying to proceed through the ice at night, while the Titanic continued to speed through an area that was known to contain ice.

"Furthermore when a vessel firing rockets was reported to him he established by visual examination that it was not the Titanic."

Captain Lord never came on deck himself to examine the rockets. He looked at the vessel after Groves reported it to him, but this was before any rockets had been fired. Groves was certain it was a passenger liner, Lord disagreed. Groves reemphasized that it was, saying that she had shut off most of her lights. Later, Stone spoke to Lord about the rockets through the speaking tube, and sent Gibson to report to him, but Lord never came up and observed the rockets himself.

Gregg, I agree with your assessment, there is no evidence at all that Lord was a drinker, much less drunk that night.

Hope all of you are doing well.
Kind regards,
Tad

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Gregg: Saying every officer on the Californian was negligent is a sweeping accusation that I believe is unsupported by the facts. The real problem I believe was 2/O Stone who, in my opinion, lacked initiative and confidence. You said: "when rockets 'throwing stars' were seen, Lord's response should have been clear." According to Gibson's written account on Apr 18, Stone told Gibson that he called down to Lord after seeing the 2nd rocket just to make sure of what he saw. (The 1st rocket he saw he thought was a shooting star.) He reported seeing what he thought was a white rocket coming from the direction of a ship that had stopped over an hour before for apparently the same reason the Californian was forced to stop earlier that evening. Put yourself in Lord's place. His 2nd officer calls down with a report of seeing what appeared to be a white rocket coming from ship that had been stopped for over an hour. Stone did not report seeing distress signals. Lord's reaction was to ask him if what he had seen were company signals and if there were any colors in the signals. The though that it may have been a distress signal probably never crossed his mind if Gibson's account is right. Stone said he did not know if they were company signals. Lord then told him to try and call up the steamer by Morse lamp, remember they all thought it was only a tramp steamer just 5 to 7 miles away, and to send Gibson down if he got any reply. If Gibson's account is correct, there was nothing alarming in what Stone reported to Lord. After that initial call down, Stone managed to see 6 more rockets fired in relatively short intervals. With a 1st mate certificate he should have realized that what he was seeing was distress signals coming from this steamer. He also mentioned to Gibson that the lights started to look queer, and a ship at night is not going to fire rockets for nothing. Yet he, Stone, took no further action, satisfied that he done his duty when he first called upon Lord early on. If Lord at that time was not concerned, why should he be? It was only after the lights of the steamer had disappeared just after 2 AM that he sent Gibson down to inform Lord, claiming the ship he was watching had steamed off to the SW.

 

[Noel F. Jones]

“No radio equipped vessels in the area 'other than the Titanic'... so your point is...?”

I can only direct you to that part of my post where I say: “Furthermore when a vessel firing rockets was reported to him he established by visual examination that it was not the Titanic.”

In the light of the information provided by Tad that would need revising but not to the extent that it would be distanced further from any point I am perceived to be making. If you are intent on pursuing the matter further it seems to me you would be more entertainingly employed in addressing the paradox I have postulated.

Other than that and in general I can only conclude that this present attempt to further incriminate Captain Lord and his officers is little other than an opportunistic exercise in 2006 hindsight.

Noel

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Hi Noel: Is there really any paradox? Do you believe the Titanic could have been in sight of the Californian, but the Californian was not in sight of the Titanic? Just trying to understand your statement.