The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

1899.] "MARINE REVIEW. CRITICISM OF INSPECTION SERVICE. GENERAL DUMONT'S ANSWER TO A COMMUNICATION REGARDING BOAT DE- | TACHING DEVICES SUBMITTED AT THE RECENT MEETING OF THE SOOIETY OF NAVAL AROHITECTS AND MARINE ENGINEERS. Editor Marine Review: Referring to marked article in the Review of Nov. 23, under the title of "Severe Criticism of the Steamboat Inspec- tion Service,' by a Mr. James R. Raymond of New York, who I believe is the patentee of a boat detaching device, that has failed to meet the ap- proval of the board of supervising inspectors of steam vessels for reasons that have been satisfactorily explained to congress in a report of which the following is an extract, your attention being called to the fact that the report of 1894 refers to the detaching apparatus of which Mr. Raymond is the alleged patentee, the exhibition of his device referred to therein having been given, if my recollection is right, under the personal direc- tion of Mr. Raymond: On Jan. 27, 1896, Mr. Chancellor, chairman of the committee on [ife- saving appliances, made the following report: : "The committee on life-saving appliances, having had under consid- eration the resolution of the house of representatives, presented to the board by the supervising inspector-general on Jan. 23, 1897, rela.ing to equipments on ocean steam vessels, namely, lifeboats, boat detaching apparatus, etc., beg leave to report that said resolution of the Fifty-fourth congress, first session, house of representatives, dated Jan. 21, 1896, reads as follows: ""Whereas it has been repeatedly charged by the Buffalo Evening News and other leading papers, that ocean steamers are permitted to sail from American ports with life boat equipment utterly inadequate to accommodate the crew and passengers in case of accident; and " "Whereas it is further alleged in these same journals that life boats are frequently without the detaching hooks of the disengaging apparatus required by law; now, therefore, be it : "*Resolved that the secretary of the treasury be directed to inform the house of representatives whether the present provisions for the safety of the public in ocean travel are adequate; and if so, whether such pro- visions are strictly carried out. Attest: A. McDowell, Clerk.' "In answer to the newspaper allegation in the resolution of the house of representatives 'that life boats are frequently without the detaching hooks of the disengaging apparatus required by law,' your committee are at a loss to comprehend exactly what is meant, but assume that what was intended to be said was that life boats are frequently not furnished--to quote the exact language of the law (sec. 4488, rev. stat.)--'with suitable boat-disengaging apparatus, so arranged as to allow such boats (life boats) to be safely launched while such vessels are under speed or otherwise, and so as to allow such disengaging apparatus to be operated by one person, disengaging both ends of the boat simultaneously from the tackles by which it may be lowered to the water.' If our assumption in this respect is correct, we would report that the allegation is mostly true, for though all boats are furnished with suitable hooks and disengaging apparatus, practically complying with the terms of the law, they are not furnished with the technically lawful disengaging apparatus, for the rea- son that no disengaging apparatus has yet been constructed that will allow a boat 'to be safely launched while such (steam) vessels are under speed,' while there are probably many such that will safely launch a boat with the steamer not under headway. "After the law was passed, Feb. 28, 1871, requiring such impracticable _ apparatus as it does, a number of them were approved by this board and put in use on steam vessels, but two or three years' experience proved those that had been approved not only worthless but dangerous to life, and in consequence thereof the board, at its meeting held Jan. 31, 1873 (proceedings of 1873, p. 33), rescinded the approval of all such apparatus in the following preambles and resolution: ""Whereas the experience of this board is against the use of the dis- engaging apparatus heretofore approved and used as a life-saving instru- ment; and : "Whereas, in accordance with the provisions in the second sub- division of the eleventh section of the act of Feb. 28, 1871 (now section 4488, revised statutes), requiring this board to approve of all kinds of instruments, machines or equipments for the better security of life re- quired by that act, presupposes that the right resides in this board to _ condemn and disapprove all such instruments, etc., as do not accomplish their objects; therefore, : : ""Be it resolved that all the action of this board heretofore approving of and regulating all kinds of boat-disengaging ,apparatus, be, and is hereby, repealed.' "Since the date of the action of the board as above quoted, the board has at each succeeding annual meeting had occasion to examine and ysoexperiment with various designs of disengaging apparatus, but has failed as yet to find one that would comply with that provision of the law here- tofore referred to as being impracticable, and, in the opinion of your _ committee, impossible; the last experiment being with one claimed to be the best ever invented, yet which, on a practical trial, failed to operate four times out of six, thereby proving that any dependence that 'may be placed on such disengaging apparatus is so purely a matter of chance as to almost constitute its compulsory use a crime. Following is a verbatim report of the committee who witnessed the experiments referred to (pro- ceedings 1894, p. 48): : "<The committee on life-saving appliances, having had under cath sideration the communication of Lieut. Lucien Young, presented to the _ board by the supervising inspector-general on Jan. 18, 1894, oe < -a boat-detaching apparatus, beg leave to report as follows: That on ae -urday, Jan. 27, your committee, on invitation of Mr. Young, Eaeteec to the Potomac river to witness a test of the above-named apparatus, ae --were informed that they were not ready to make test; on Feb. 3, the. : 3 ~-fowing Saturday, however, six tests were witnessed by the Eon 7 » from the United States steam tug Triton, four of which were unsuccesstu : "+ and-your committee ask to be discharged from further consideration o * 17 the matter. Signed Alex. McMaster, Geo. H. Starbuck, C. H. Westcott, Committee. en conclusion, your committee would earnestly recommend that section 4488, revised statutes, be amended by striking out in said statute all the words following the word 'apparatus' in the first paragraph of said. section, thus leaving to the board of supervising inspectors discretion to approve disengaging apparatus that in their judgment is safe as well as piacticable. All of which is respectful'y submi.ted for the considcration of ee Signed E. P. Chancellor, M. J. Galvin, W. H. Murdaugh, Com~- mittee. * This report was adopted by the following vote: Ayes--Messrs. Berm.n_ham, Starbuck, Murdaugh, O'Neal, Tibbals, Thompson, Chan- cles Galway, Galvin, O'Brien and the supervising inspector-general; eleven. Mr. Raymond in the last paragraph of his paper as published in the Marine Review, says: "The supervising inspector-general has asked that the statutes be amended so that the board might be enabled to select a proper device, giving as a reason that, according to the wording of the statutes, they are prevented from giving their approval of any device other than the one mentioned therein, namely, the one operated by one person, disengaging both ends of the boat simultaneously, etc., etc. Had he the welfare of the public at heart, would he, or the board of inspectors urder him, find anything in the language of the statutes that would forbid the selection of any good device, the universal use of which would famil- iarize all sailors with its operation?" From this it would appear evidently that Mr. Raymond has never heard of General Grant's saying regarding an obnoxious law when he was president, that the "way to get rid of such laws, is to enforce them." Instead of this way of proceeding, evidently, Mr. Raymond would have the members of the board of supervising inspectors violate their oaths ot office by ignoring the law and acting on their judgment in cases in which he is pecuniarily interested, contrary to the statutes provided therefor, and thereby places his individual pecuniary interest in his detaching apparatus as superior to the moral obligations imposed on the members of the board of supervising inspectors. The law requires, as will be seen, that the "boat disengaging apparatus" shall be "'so arranged as to allow such disengaging apparatus to be operated by one person disengaging both ends of the boat simultaneously from the tackles by which it is lowered to the water." Mr. Raymond's apparatus is, or is claimed to be, "automatic"; that fact alone clearly places it outside the terms of the law as herein quoted. Mr. Raymond has recognized that fact, and has tried, but unsuccessfully, to remedy that defect, by placing a lanyard around the detaching fork, the ends held by a person in each end of the boat, who are supposed to simultaneously let slip the lanyards when the boat strikes the water, which they may do or may not, depending upon the length of training the men may have had; thus from a lack of possible concert between the two pcrsons, inviting the main danger involved in disengaging the ordinary hooks; a danger the law evidently, in the language that has been quoted, was intended to guard against, by requiring the disengaging apparatus to be under the control Of one person. That there is a practical danger in the method adcpted by Mr. Raymond of preventing, by a lanyard around the ce aching fork of his otherwise automatic hooks, to prevent their prematurely unhooking is shown in the following statement quoted from the New York Herald of Sept. 14, 1899. "Gibraltar, Sunday.--The flagship Olympia with Admiral Dewey on boerd, lelt today tcr New York direct. On Friday the Admiral, accom- p nied ty Flag Lieutenant Brumby, visited * * * the training ship Alliance. * * * The Admiral! quite won the hearts of the boys. This was especially illustra:ed by one incident, which, while a sad one, brought cut the Adnurats on er si in them. On the morning of his visit, while leaving a boat, the lanyard en the detaching fork parted and one end of the boat dropped into the water, throwing a boy from the boat into the water, and breaking his right leg badly below the knee." The undersigned has no information as to whether the detaching ap- paratus of the Alliance's small boat was of the Raymond pattern or not, but the accident, as described in the Heraid article, would seem to indicate one constructed on similar tines. JAMES A. DUMONT, Supervising Inspector-General. Office of U. S. Steamboat Inspection Service, Washington, D. C., Nov. 27, 1899. CLASSED IN THE GREAT LAKES REGISTER. The following vessels were classed in Great Lakes Register of Cleve- land. during the month of November, 1899: Under special survey-- Steamer Angeline. Under ordinary survey--Steamers Avon, C. W. EI- phicke, Miami, Thomas Davidson, and schooners Amoretta Mosher, Annie M. Peterson, B. B. Buckout, Henry W. Hoag, John Martin, Nellie Redington and Plymouth. The steamer Porto Rico, recently completed by the Craig Ship Build- ing Co. of Toledo for Miller,Bull & Knowlton of New York, and which was taken to the coast via the St. Lawrence, has arrived at New York, and will proceed at an early date to Porto Rico, where she will be em- ployed in the coasting trade around the island. The Porto Rico is 220 feet in length, 32 feet beam and 21 feet depth. She has capacity for carry- ing considerable freight and in addition has accommodations tor twenty- fcur first-class, thirty-six second-class and 150 steerage passengers. She is fitted with triple expansion engines with cylinders of 18, 27 and 45 inches diameter and 30 inches stroke, to which steam is supplied from two boilers, each 11 by 11% feet, and capable of a working pressure of 175 pounds. The speed of the Porto Rico is 15 knots. Ship building in the Canadian provinces seems to be in rather a more flourishing condition, at least in so far as small craft are concerned, than for some time past. Between Halifax and Shelburne forty-five new wooden vessels are in course of construction, and some of them will shortly be launched. The aggregate value of these vessels is about $225,000,