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