A life ring, a teapot, a boatswain's pipe, a bugle, and a bottle of champagne . . . Remembering Pearl Harbor - Part II

To read part 1, click on the "USS Arizona" tag on the right of the page.

Here are some photos of some of the items in the State Capital Museum. (Click the photos to see the items in greater detail.)

Remembering Pearl Harbor - Part I

Today, December 7, 2009, marks the 68th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. I was downtown a little while back and had some time, so I stopped into the Arizona State Capital Museum where there is located a piece of the USS Arizona that was removed from the superstructure in 1942 and stored at Waipio Point, Oahu until 1995 when it was transferred to Arizona by the U.S. Navy.

The museum also houses a life ring, teapot, a boatswain’s pipe, and a bugle owned by Maurice Vincent, who played with the USS Arizona band in the late 1930s, among other items. Also included in the museum’s collection are a number of beautiful silver, copper, and silver and copper serving sets which were not on the ship at the time of the attack. They are some of the most beautiful pieces I’ve seen.

Outside, located in the Wesley Bolin Memorial Plaza, is an anchor from the USS Arizona as well as a signal mast. I’d seen those before as I’ve been to the plaza for a number of events, but hadn’t known about the piece of the superstructure inside.

Here are some photos of the piece of the superstructure. I'll be posting photos of some of the other things I saw in upcoming posts.

And the Widow Wore White . . .

In a post dated September 22, 2009, I mentioned a magazine I found while digging around in some boxes that were in the basement of a charming little used book store in New York. In a different issue of the same magazine, in a section titled "Mainly About Men And Women" I discovered the following. The issue is dated September, 1912.What I found is a little blurb about Mrs. John Jacob Astor and her announcement that she would wear nothing but pure white for six months.

It reads -

Probably ten years from now black will not be worn at all as a badge of mourning. That is the conclusion of those who have been drawn into a discussion of the subject by the announcement that Mrs. John Jacob Astor will wear nothing but pure white for the next six months. "Personally I have always thought the only important question in regard to mourning apparel concerns not the putting it on, but the taking it off," declares one authority. "The lady who 'goes into colors' after a polite period of gloom seems to symbolize so blatantly the transient nature of her grief. Mourning outght to be worn forever. At least that is my feeling about it." Why not vote on it? Which do you favor? White or black? Or none at all?

Brooke Astor's Son Found Guilty

I have a book on the Astors, and I think there are a number of interesting issues going on with the family members involved (or not, some might argue), and I also plan to follow the appeal, so I'll be posting more on this story.

Vincent Astor, who brought his father's body back to New York and presided over his funeral after the sinking, was married to Brooke at the time of his somewhat (doctors had diagnosed a cardiovascular condition that fluctuated over the five months before his death) unexpected death of a heart attack on February 3, 1959. I can't help but think that he's smiling down over this verdict, and perhaps somewhat relieved. It's my understanding that sentencing will take place on December 8, and I hope the judge sticks it to the lawyer involved.

Article

On a side note, Vincent left his half-brother nothing. I don't think I'll ever be able to watch "the movie" again without being reminded of the fact that the kid with whom Madelaine was pregnant while on the Titanic and, in my opinion unintentionally disinherited, is, ironically, the one responsible (he left a son and grandson when he died in July of 1992) for carrying on the Astor name in the United States. I find it a bit interesting that Vincent left him nothing, as he had to have known that his father would have wanted to provide for him and, although it's my understanding that Vincent didn't like him (his half-brother) much and didn't respect his choices in life, it's interesting that he didn't do the right thing, so to say.

Millvina Dean's Ashes Scattered

Bruno Nordmannis, Millvina's lifelong friend, places floral wreaths in the water after Millvina's ashes were scattered.


Photo Credit: Daily Echo

Millvina Dean's ashes have been scattered in the water where Titanic departed Southampton almost one hundred years ago. Millvina died on May 31, 2009, which was the 98th anniversary of Titanic's launch in Belfast.

Article

Premier Exhibitions, Inc. Regains Compliance With NASDAQ Listing Rules

Article

Fredrick Fleet

Photo Credit: Find A Grave

On this day in the year 1887, Fredrick Fleet was born in Liverpool, England. Fleet was a lookout on the Titanic and was on duty when she struck an iceberg and sank approximately two and one half hours later. Unfortunately, Fredrick Fleet would be among the Titanic survivors who would eventually end their own lives. He committed suicide in 1965 after the death of his wife a couple of weeks earlier. He's buried in Hollybrook Cemetery, located in Southampton.

Love Me Tender

The Nomadic lying in dry dock in Belfast waiting for restoration to begin.
Photo Source: Belfast Telegraph

According to an article in BBC News, police were called in when the Nomadic Preservation Society removed two ornate doors from the historic tender. A spokesperson for the Nomadic Preservation Society said it had purchased the doors in Paris and claimed they possessed proof of ownership. The society now wants an apology from the Nomadic Trust, which is the government-appointed body which called the police and eventually described the event as a misunderstanding.

There is also a dispute between the Nomadic Preservation Society and the Nomadic Trust over a lifeboat that once belonged to the Nomadic, with the Nomadic Preservation Society claiming it bought the lifeboat, and the Nomadic Trust claiming it had been gifted to the Trust.

The two entities are also arguing over the multimillion pound project to restore the Nomadic. Members of the Nomadic Preservation Society are reluctant to hand over the funds they have raised to the Nomadic Trust because it is unclear what the Trust intends to do with the funds. The doors are now in storage and it is unclear when they will be reunited with the tender.

According to an article in the Belefast Telegraph, an expert in restoration projects has offered to step in and act as mediator to help resolve issues between the Nomadic Preservation Society and the Nomadic Trust.

According to another article in the Belefast Telegraph, the restoration of the Nomadic, the tender that ferried first and second-class passengers on board the Titanic from Cherbourg, will begin in the spring of 2010. There had been concerns of a funding shortfall, and it was beginning to look doubtful that the tender would be reopened to the public ahead of the 100th anniversary of her launch. Thanks to a grant from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, there are now sufficient funds in place for restoration of the Nomadic to begin. (Other funders who have contributed to the project include Belfast City Council, Belfast Harbour, Titanic Quarter Ltd, Ulster Garden Villages, and the Better Belfast project.) Both the Titanic and the Nomadic were launched from Harland and Wolff, located in Belfast, in 1911.

Check the following link for some nice pictures of the Nomadic when she was docked at Le Havre, France, and after coming home to Belfast, Ireland. Notice the photo in which the White Star Line company flag is flying proudly from her stern.

Department for Social Development

A Queen Is Launched

September 26th marked the 75th anniversary of the launch of the R.M.S. Queen Mary in Scotland. Here, courtesy of the National Library of Scotland, you can see a short (about one minute and ten seconds) but amazing video of her launch.

Video

Ismay Arrives In Liverpool

I found this little gem while digging around in some boxes that were in the basement of a charming little used book store in New York. As I was looking through the boxes, I came across a copy of a magazine called "Home Life" magazine on the cover of which someone had written "1912" in what looked like colored pencil. Needless to say, I was curious, so I opened it up and had a look inside. Toward the beginning of the magazine is a section called "In The Wake Of The News." In this section is a picture of Ismay and his wife arriving in Liverpool. I'll post another interesting little tidbit from this issue in a future blog entry.

The following caption reads:

"TITANIC SURVIVORS AT LIVERPOOL
In this picture J. Bruce Ismay, the president

of the company owning the ill-fated Titanic,

and one of the first men to take a place in the

lifeboats when he knew the ship was in danger,

is seen coming down the gangway with his wife

at his side. The Ismay smile would not seem

to indicate that he has felt the sting of the

criticism that has been leveled at him. Preceding

them is Sir John Hare, the English actor, returned

from a recent trip to Canada."

This shows the picture came from Volume Twenty-Two, Number Seven, dated August, Nineteen Twelve.

George Whitelock's Response to Mellor - Part VI (final part)

To read from the beginning, please see blog entry dated June 9, 2009.
To read Part II, please see blog entry dated June 11, 2009.
To read Part III, please see blog entry dated June 21, 2009.
To read Part IV, please see blog entry dated July 15, 2009.
To read Part V, please see blog entry dated August 8, 2009.

This article may be read in its entirety at George Whitelock, Damages For Death By Negligence At Sea – The Titanic, 49 American Law Review, 75 (1915).

(continued from Part V)

Now the issue of negligence vel non not having been yet adjudicated in America, what then may result to the death claims if the Company presses its petition for limitation of liability under American law? To repeat: A statute has never been adopted by the American Congress for recovery of damages for loss of life by negligence on the high seas, and no present right of recovery therefore exists either by the general maritime law of the United States, or by federal statute. If the fund of $91,805.54 is finally distributed under the petition of the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company, Ltd., the cases of The Hamilton and La Bourgogne will be controlling authority to admit the death claimants to participation therein.

But if, on the other hand, the application to limit the liability of the Company is finally disallowed because of the Company’s own negligence, will there be any redress at all for the death claimants? They cannot, as shown, recover under American law; and the period of time limitation under Lord Campbell’s Act will preclude the institution of new suits in England. Will American Judges relieve the asperity of the law of their own forum by applying for the benefit of such claimants, in direct suits for damages, the law of the flag (that is, of Great Britain), as American Judges applied the law of France to the case of La Bourgogne in proceedings to limit liability? The future can alone determine. Thus far the Supreme Court has dealt only with the remedy; it has said nothing about rights. Its wisdom is indisputable in holding that persons who elect to sue in American Courts are limited in recovery by the American Statute irrespective of foreign enactment.

Two phases of existing law of the United States merit special comment here. First, the omission to provide a clear and direct right of recovery of damages for death by negligence at sea; secondly, the establishment of the present maximum of pecuniary liability as that of the value of salved property plus freight pending. The world disaster of the Titanic throws strong light on both of these propositions, and the necessity of reformatory legislation.

Six years ago I sought to demonstrate the need of a remedial statute by Congress to assimilate the law of the United States to that of Europe in respect of the right of dependants to recover damages for death of a relative by negligence at sea. It is not expedient to repeat my reasons here.

Since my original address was delivered at Buda-Pesth the Maritime Law Association of the United States and the American Bar Association have continued their earnest advocacy of the proposed reform, the arguments for which have been so tragically reinforced by the case of the Titanic. The American Congress seems at last aroused; and it is believed that the Peters Bill introduced on June 17, 1913, in the House of Representatives, and favorably reported with amendments from the Judiciary Committee on December 22, 1913, will be duly enacted as the law of the American Courts of Admiralty. It is entitled “A Bill Relating to the Maintenance of Actions for Death on the High Seas and other Navigable Waters.”

But it is obvious, I think, that neither the foreign law nor an American Statute can do adequate justice in American Courts so long as the standard established by the Act of 1851, furnishes the limit of a shipowner’s liability. The subject of the limitation thereof has been considered in international conference and the draft of an international convention has been already distributed. That draft looks to international unification of the rules relating to the limitation of shipowners’ liability in the case of sea-going vessels; the only method by which justice can be rendered both exact and uniform. In this reform, too, the Maritime Law Association of the United States is actively interesting itself. An able committee was appointed at its last meeting in New York on May 1, 1914, to consider the general subject of limitation of the liability of shipowners with special reference to the proposed draft convention and to report thereon to the Association. This great and salutary reform is at least in posse.

George Whitelock

(The text of the Peters Bill was also included in a footnote.)

George Whitelock's Response to Mellor - Part V

To read from the beginning, please see blog entry dated June 9, 2009.
To read Part II, please see blog entry dated June 11, 2009.
To read Part III, please see blog entry dated June 21, 2009.
To read Part IV, please see blog entry dated July 15, 2009.

This article may be read in its entirety at George Whitelock, Damages For Death By Negligence At Sea – The Titanic, 49 American Law Review, 75 (1915).

(continued from part IV)

But it may be here pertinently observed that while the issue of fact has not yet been determined in the Courts of America, a jury in England has already awarded damages for the death of four of he steerage passengers of the Titanic, having found negligence of the Company. The verdicts were rendered in the cases of Ryan et al. v. Oceanic Steam Navigation Company, brought under the provisions of the English Death Statute, called Lord Campbell’s Act. On review before the Court of Appeal upon application for a new trial, a re-hearing was refused and the appeals were dismissed on February 9, 1914. Lord Justice Vaughan Williams, speaking for the Appellate Court, said: “There was one question common to all these cases – namely, whether the loss of the Titanic was due to negligent navigation; and the jury found that it was.” Considering the question of negligence in fact, his Lordship further said that “there was no doubt that the Captain of the Titanic had diverted his course and adopted anther way of precaution to avoid ice of which he was warned by marconigrams from the Caronia and Baltic, but his Lordship thought it impossible to say that there was no evidence upon which the findings of negligence could be based, and added: “I think that the danger in this case was neither unforeseen or unforeseeable. There was warning, to my mind, of dangerous ice ahead, and the jury might reasonably come to the conclusion that in the circumstances a prudent master ought thereupon to have slowed down, or even to have stopped, and if the master failed to perform this duty he cannot say, ‘I am excused because the state of things which the ship afterwards encountered was unforeseen or unforeseeable,’ as the accident might not have happened if he had slowed down.”

And Lord Justice Kennedy, who also delivered judgment, arrived at the same conclusion that the appeals should be dismissed.

(To be continued in Part VI of George Whitelock’s Response to Mellor.)

George Whitelock's Response to Mellor - Part IV

To read from the beginning, please see blog entry dated June 9, 2009.
To read Part II, please see blog entry dated June 11, 2009.
To read Part III, please see blog entry dated June 21, 2009.

This article may be read in its entirety at George Whitelock, Damages For Death By Negligence At Sea – The Titanic, 49 American Law Review, 75 (1915).

(continued from part III)

(We left off with a quote by Justice Holms and now continue with Whitelock’s response.)

The far-reaching significance to the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company of this preliminary victory will be appreciated when it is noted that the application of the British standard of limitation of liability – fifteen pounds per gross ton – would have provided for distribution among claimants a fund of $2,500,000, as against the trivial sum of $91,805.54, thus determined to be the limit of liability if the owner of the Titanic is in fact entitled to limit its responsibility – an issue not yet decided by the American Courts, and whose determination depends on proofs to be hereafter adduced. Thus far the Supreme Court has merely sustained the Company’s contention that the American statute and not the British will furnish the gauge of the amount for distribution, provided the Company is not precluded by the conditions of the American law from availing itself of the right of limitation. It is to be borne in mind that the right of a shipowner to limit liability under the Act of Congress is predicated on the fact that the negligent act committed was done without his privity or knowledge. In the case of a corporation, the privity or knowledge of the president, or other high officer, would of course be the privity or knowledge of the corporation itself, and would defeat its right to the exemption. Here the Company has appropriately alleged in its petition that “the collision aforesaid and the loss, damage, injury and destruction resulting therefrom were due to inevitable accident, and were not caused or contributed to by any negligence or fault on the part of the petitioner, or of those in charge of the steamship Titanic, and were occasioned and incurred without the privity or knowledge of the petitioner.” But if it be ultimately established that the Compnay itself was at fault, and that the accident in fact occurred with its privity and knowledge, then the Company’s petition must be dismissed, and in such event its liability will be unlimited. The press of New York is authority for the statement of one of counsel for the claimants, made since the decision at Washington, that the claimants will contend that there was not only negligence in the navigation of the Titanic, but that J. Bruce Ismay, the executive head of the Company, knew of the dangers, was privy to them and nevertheless permitted the vessel to continue her course and speed. It is hardly necessary to say that the Company, on the other hand, expressly “claims exemption from liability, as owner of the steamship Titanic, for the losses, damages, injuries, and destruction occasioned or incurred by the collision and sinking aforesaid, and for the claims for damages that have been made, or hereafter may be made, and it alleges that it has valid defenses thereto on the facts and under the provisions of the contracts for the carriage of the cargo and of the passengers and their baggage.”

(To be continued in Part V of George Whitelock’s Response to Mellor.)

George Whitelock's Response to Mellor - Part III

To read from the beginning, please see blog entry dated June 9, 2009.
To read Part II, please see blog entry dated June 11, 2009.

This article may be read in its entirety at George Whitelock, Damages For Death By Negligence At Sea – The Titanic, 49 American Law Review, 75 (1915).

(continued from part II)

Mr. Justice Holmes said in the course of a luminous and scholarly judgment delivered by him on behalf of the Supreme Court (Mr. Justice McKenna alone dissenting) that:

“It is true that the Act of Congress does not control or profess to control the conduct of a British ship on the high seas. It is true that the foundation for a recovery upon a British tort is an obligation created by British law. But it also is true that the laws of the forum may decline altogether to enforce that obligation on the ground that it is contrary to the domestic policy, or may decline to enforce it except within such limits as it may impose. It is competent, therefore, to Congress to enact that in certain matters belonging to admiralty jurisdiction parties resorting to our Courts shall recover only to such extent or in such way as it may mark out. The question is not whether the owner of the Titanic by this proceeding can require all claimants to come in and can cut down rights vested under English law, as against, for instance, Englishmen living in England who do not appear. It is only whether those who do see fit to sue in this country are limited in their recovery irrespective of the English law. That they are so limited results in our opinion from the decisions of the Court.

It is not necessary to consider whether the Act of Congress may not limit the rights of shippers or American vessels to recover for injuries in our waters or on the high seas, so that if they sued in a foreign court they could not be allowed to recover more than the Act allows if our construction of the law were followed. A law that limits a right in one case may limit a remedy in another. This statute well might be held to announce a general policy, governing both obligations that arise within the jurisdiction and suits that are brought in the Courts of the United States. It clearly limits the remedy, as we have shown, in cases where it has nothing to say about the rights.

We see no absurdity in supposing that if the owner of the Titanic were sued in different countries, each having a different rule affecting the remedy there, the local rule would be applied in each case. It can be imagined that in consequence of such diverse proceedings, the owner might not be able to comply with the local requirements for limitation, as it also is conceivable that if it sought the advantage of an alien law it might as a condition have to pay more than its liability under the law of its flag in some cases. But the imagining of such possible difficulties is no sufficient reason for not applying the statute as it has been construed; on the whole, it would seem with good effect.”

(To be continued in Part IV of Whitelock's Response to Mellor.)

George Whitelock's Response to Mellor - Part II

To read from the beginning, please see blog entry dated June 9, 2009.

This article may be read in its entirety at George Whitelock, Damages For Death By Negligence At Sea – The Titanic, 49 American Law Review, 75 (1915).

(continued from Part I)

When the Titanic sank at sea in collision with an iceberg, the vessel had never been in a port of the United States. In such circumstances, the Court of first instance at New York denied all right of the Company to limit its liability under American law. The point had been taken by claimants at the very outset that upon the facts shown in the petition itself, the petitioner’s right of limitation, if it existed at all, was that granted by the terms of the British statute conferring a right of limitation and not by the American. And on April 21, 1913, Judge Holt then sitting, it was held below that three universal principals were decisive against the limitation claimed by the British Company under American law. Those principles were, the Judge said: (1) The rule that the law of no nation has any extra-territorial effect; (2) The rule that a ship on the high seas is a part of the country to which she belongs; (3) The rule that liability for a tort is governed by the lex loci delicti.

The Supreme Court of the United States has reached in its recent decision an entirely different conclusion than Judge Holt, the Court of final appeal holding that the owner of a British vessel can legally maintain such proceedings under American law in case of disaster upon the high seas where only that vessel is concerned, although there are claimants of many different nationalities; and further ruling that this right of limitation exists where there is nothing before the American Court to show what, if any, is the British law, touching the owner’s liability for the disaster, as well as where it affirmatively appears in such a case that the British law makes a provision for limitation of liability on terms and conditions different from those afforded by the American statutes.

In consequence of these views it was decided that the Courts of the United States will in such proceedings to limit the owner’s liability, enforce the American law and will not enforce the law of Great Britain.

(To be continued in Part III of George Whitelock’s Response to Mellor.)

George Whitelock's Response to Mellor - Part I

In Oceanic Steam Navigation Company, Limited, as Owner of the Steamship Titanic v. Mellor, the Supreme Court answered the following three questions certified to the Court by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit – 1) whether an owner of a vessel of British nationality, involved in a collision that gave rise to claimants of many different nationalities, was entitled to maintain a proceeding to limit its liability, 2) whether the owner was able to maintain such a proceeding in the United States if the law of the foreign country to which the vessel belonged made provision for limitation upon different terms, and 3) if the answer to the second question was in the affirmative, whether the courts of the United States enforced the law of the United States or of the foreign country. The Supreme Court answered “yes” to the first two questions. Regarding the third question, the Court answered that the laws of the United States were to be enforced because limitation of the owner’s liability was considered to be remedial in nature.

Oceanic Steam Navigation Company, Limited, as Owner of the Steamship Titanic v. Mellor, 233 U.S. 718 (1914).

In upcoming blog entries, beginning with this one, I’ll transcribe George Whitelock’s response to the decision, first published in the American Law Review in 1915. George Whitelock served as Chairman of the Special Committee to Present Bills to Congress Relating to Courts of Admiralty. (I’ll be transcribing one of the Committee’s recommendations in an upcoming blog entry.)

George Whitelock, Damages For Death By Negligence At Sea – The Titanic, 49 American Law Review, 75 (1915).

Damages For Death By Negligence At Sea – The Titanic

A recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (May, 1914) concerning the loss of the Titanic (233 U.S. 718) induces an extension of my remarks on recovery of damages for death by negligence at sea submitted to the International Law Association six years ago. The profound and universal interest in that awful tragedy is the justification for additional comment.

It will be recalled that the existing law of the United States confers no right of civil recovery for loss of life by negligence on the high seas. Derived from the common law of England, the archaic principle that there can be no pecuniary recompense for the death of a human being still prevails, unless abrogated by statute, in all jurisdictions in which that system of law is operative. Decisions by the United States Supreme Court in 1907 and 1908 caused a statement of my views on such damages to the meeting at Buda-Pesth [sic]. The cases in point were The Hamilton (207 U.S. 398), an American steamer, and La Bourgogne (210 U.S. 95), a French vessel. Each case arose out of a surrender by the shipowner of the remains of his property after collision, together with the freight pending, the purpose of the suits being a limitation of the shipowner’s liability under the provisions of the Act of 1851 of the American Congress. These decisions were a definite advance in the application of extra-territorial law to extra-territorial marine torts. But death claimants having been merely admitted to participation in funds voluntarily paid into Court by shipowners under statutory proceedings to limit their liability, the cases are not authority for the maintenance of direct suit to recover for death by negligence at sea.

Litigation in America concerning the loss of the Titanic on April 14, 1912, has now assumed the same form as the litigation concerning The Hamilton and the litigation concerning La Bourgogne, in which the above mentioned decisions were respectively rendered. The Oceanic Steam Navigation Company, Limited, owner of the Titanic, and a British corporation, has undertaken by petition in the American admiralty to limit its liability under American law to $91, 805.54, an amount representing the aggregate of salved property and freight pending, the claims asserted against the Company in actions for loss of life and personal injuries in the Courts of America running into the millions. By the Company’s own petition it is asserted that the steamship Titanic was a total loss, and that nothing was saved from the wreck except 13 lifeboats, together with their equipment, and one collapsible boat, which was subsequently picked up by the steamship Oceanic and brought to New York.

(To be continued in Part II of George Whitelock’s Response to Mellor)

So Many (Valid) Interests . . . So Little Time

Below, you’ll find a link to the transcript of the hearing held before the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, held on October 29, 1985, on the issue of the R.M.S. Titanic Memorial Act. I found it interesting that the chairman felt the need to hold a separate hearing due to the fact that the wreck of the Titanic was of “ . . . such unique significance as to merit its own hearing.” The Committee heard arguments from a variety of people, both “pro-salvage” and “anti-salvage”. Among the persons testifying were Dr. Robert Ballard who, along with scientists and engineers on a joint expedition which included the United States and France, discovered the wreck in 1985; Jon Hollis of the Titanic Historical Society, Mrs. Louis Pope (survivor), Jack Grimm, William B.F. Ryan, John P. Lee, Nancy Foster (NOAA), Brian J. Hoyle (U.S. Dept. of State), and Frank L. Wiswall, Jr. (admiralty attorney). (Also included in the transcript is a rather lengthy statement by Captain W.F. Searle, Jr., USN (Retired), Chairman, Searle Consultants, Ltd., which I have not read.) It’s a bit dry in places, depending on your interests, but an interesting read overall.

Dr. Ballard’s testimony focused on the research that led to the development of the instruments/instrument systems that were used in locating the wreck, his initial focus when engaging in underwater exploration, the difficulties one faces when exploring the deep sea, the technology utilized to find the wreck, strategy used when searching for the wreck, how the effort was funded, the scientific importance of the discovery of the wreck, and the effect the Titanic has had on him personally. He also talked about the first passes over the ship, which was interesting. In his statement, he makes clear his feelings that the wreck should not be salvaged (although he is in favor of the recovery of artifacts outside the hull of the ship), gives credit to the French for their contributions, and suggests that it is France that should be the first nation approached in establishing an international agreement with other nations concerning the Titanic, among other suggestions.

Jon Hollis begins by presenting the history of the Titanic Historical Society, benefits to members, its goals, and the number and variety of projects in which it is involved. Mr. Hollis considers the site a graveyard, and asks on behalf of the Titanic Historical Society that the Committee decree the site a memorial site. He presented to the committee a number of letters from a commercial salvager who, despite being a salvager, feels that the Titanic should not be salvaged, as well as letters from noted marine authors and maritime artifact collectors and sellers, and survivors and families of victims. (Letters from Peter Gimbel, Joan and Ted Hindmarsh, Robert Cambrola, George Thomas – survivor, Marilyn Powers for Caroline Horvath – survivor, John Malcolm Brinnin, and Becky McElroy are included in the transcript.) He suggests that an amendment be added to the bill to prevent the commercial sale of any artifact retrieved from the wreck site, as well as the retrieval of artifacts for personal collection or gain. He asks how one would feel if it were their relative who had died in the sinking, which I found to be quite thought provoking and an interesting read.

Mrs. Louis Pope, a survivor of the sinking from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, testified next. She was four years old at the time of the sinking, and what she knows of it is what her mother told her. All she remembers was the cotton blanket and the shoes on her feet. Her testimony is very short, but interesting nonetheless.

Jack Grimm testified next. Grimm, along with his associates, were in favor of the bill with the exception of one part – that is the portion of the bill restricting access to the wreck without prior government approval. Grimm begins his testimony by talking about his contribution to ocean sciences and the government. He also talked a bit about his trips to the wreck site, which was interesting.

William B.F. Ryan, who is an associate professor at Columbia University and who has worked closely with Grimm, testified as to the activities of the Texas corporations with regard to the Titanic, and pointed out that they had paid careful attention to the legal jurisdictional issues involved. In his report, he questions whether a bill of Congress enacted into law is “ . . . the appropriate vehicle for establishment of a sanctuary status.” He gives a number of reasons for this argument that are worth reading. He also talks in some detail about the three expeditions to the wreck site, taking place in 1980, 1981, and 1983. There is quite a bit more information in his statement, which I have not yet read in its entirety, as it’s quite lengthy, and I simply haven’t had the time.

John. P. Lee, Jack Grimm’s attorney, testified that they were concerned that, after all the time and money they had invested up to this point, they would be limited or restricted in what they consider their right to explore and do research on Titanic, given that it is laying in international waters and, in his opinion, outside the jurisdiction of the United States. They are also concerned with the fact that people from the United States will be prohibited from going to the wreck site while those from other nations go down to the wreck site and perform research and possible salvage activities.

I think it’s important to note that, in addressing Mr. Lee, the chairman made it clear that the legislation would not be binding until it was also implemented by the other nations involved. He made it clear that an international agreement was called for, and there was quite a bit of discussion on this.

Nancy Foster (NOAA) was the next to testify, and focused her attention on the NOAA’s experience in protecting shipwrecks.

Brian J. Hoyle, of the U.S. Departement of State testified next, emphasizing the importance of working with other nations to reach the goals set out. He also spoke about Canada and jurisdictional issues, which I found interesting, and that the administration agrees with Grimm’s concern over regulation, but understands the need for basic regulation.

Frank L. Wiswall, Jr., an admiralty attorney, then testified. Because it was the end of the day, most of his testimony was entered by way of his written statement. He pointed out that, currently, the only law in the United States that applied to the wreck was admiralty law. He recommends the International Maritime Organzation as an appropriate forum for negotiation (among others such as UNESCO and the General Assemby of the United Nations) and the main purpose of his testimony is to encourage the Committee to do so. In fact, he points out, the International Maritime Organization can be traced directly to the disaster. His written statement is filled with information on SOLAS and is an interesting read.

Although he didn’t testify, Dr. Robert L. Scheina, a U.S. Coast Guard Historian with the U.S. Coast Guard, submitted testimony by way of a written statement. In it, he talks about the extent to which the sinking influenced maritime legislation and regulation. He talks about the International Ice Patrol as well. It’s a bit much to summarize, but worth the read as it contains a lot of good information.

Rear Admiral John B. Mooney, USN, Chief of Naval Research, also submitted a prepared statement focusing on the Navy’s role in the discovery of the Titanic. Again, it’s a bit much to summarize, but worth reading.

Also worth a look is a statement prepared by Charles Ira Sachs, of the Oceanic Navigation Research Society, and a statement prepared by Fay Coutts Blettner, whose father, grandmother, and uncle were survivors of the sinking.

http://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/hr3272-house_merchant_hearing.pdf

This Marriage Is Sunk

I thought I’d begin this blog by summarizing a case I find rather amusing, brought to us courtesy of the Court of Appeals of Ohio, First Appellate District, Hamilton County. It seems Ms. Nadine Proctor made an attempt to use the sinking as a means to having her divorce decree vacated, but the court wasn’t buying it.

Percy and Nadine Procter were married in London in 1909. Percy subsequently brought a petition for divorce against Nadine, personal service was made on her, after which she filed an answer admitting the marriage, but denying all other allegations of the petition. A decree of divorce was granted to Percy after the case was tried in the common pleas court in Nadine’s absence. The Court also found that, by reason of a written agreement entered into by Nadine and Percy, she was not entitled to any alimony. Approximately seven months after the decree was entered (which was on June 8, 1912), Nadine filed a petition to vacate the decree (on January 4, 1913, to be exact).

In her petition to vacate the decree, Nadine claimed she was unable to attend the trial due to “unavoidable casualty and misfortune” because it was necessary for her to return to Europe after the summons was served to attend to business matters. Further, she claimed she made arrangements with attorneys, whom she didn’t name, to see to it that the case was not tried until her return. When she received notice of the upcoming trial, Nadine claimed she left Europe on Titanic.

After Titanic hit the iceberg, Nadine claimed she became severely injured while being lowered into a lifeboat, and that she was so shocked by being out in the middle of the ocean, that she became unconscious and remained so until waking up in a hospital in London, where she remained until traveling, on May 12, to Russia where her mother lived. She then sailed for the United States and arrived on August 15, 1912, aboard the steamship President Lincoln to find that a decree had been entered in her case the preceding June.

Nadine was relying on a section of the General Code, which empowers the common pleas court to vacate or modify a judgment or order “for unavoidable casualty or misfortune, preventing the party from prosecuting or defending.” The court points out the code authorizes the setting aside of a judgment for unavoidable casualty or misfortune only when it is of such a character as prevents the party from prosecuting or defending, not when it only prevents a person from attending a trial in person.

The court notes she could have given her deposition while in London in May of 1912 and filed it in the common please court of Hamilton County before the decree was rendered on June 8, 1912, because she was able to travel from London to St. Petersburg during that time. They also point out that it would be inconceivable for the court to have denied her a delay if she had, indeed, been a survivor of the sinking and had asked for one. They also note she had failed to employ counsel after summons had been served on her, among other things. Finally, the court wonders the following –

“If it be true as she avers, and the truth of the averment must be assumed for the purposes of this case, that she was a passenger on the steamship Titanic at the time it collided with an iceberg, then the query naturally arises how she came to be thereafter in a hospital in London, in view of what is said to be well-known current history that the survivors of that shipwreck were picked up at sea by a steamer which landed them at an American port.”

Hmmmmm . . .

Procter v. Procter, 245 Ohio App., 245 (1915).

About This Blog . . . continued

Coming Soon