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

22 | MARINE REVIEW. [December 21, the cross-section of the river at the gorge. Should it, for any reason, be considered desirable to regulate the lake at a lower level, the desired result can be accomplished by enlarging the cross-section of the river so _as to provide for the maximum discharge at the adopted level. The board is of the opinion that, with the works proposed, the level of the lake can be maintained during the season of navigation within about 0.6 foot below the level adopted for regulation, under all conditions of supply heretofore recorded. Considerable changes of level due to violent winds would be temporary and infrequent, and, in the opinion of the board, would not seriously interfere with the regulation of the lake level. The current velocities in the Niagara river, below the point where the canal enters it, will not be increased by the operation of the regulating works. "The modification of the outflow of Lake Erie proposed for the regulation of its level will not materially change the total volume of annual _discharge, and will amount to only about one-fifth of the variation of the discharge for different years under present conditions. The effect of this modification upon Lake Ontario will be to slightly increase the rate of rise in the spring and make the date of maximum stage a little earlier. This will not injure the navigation interests of the lake. The board regrets that it has been unable to obtain reliable data connecting the dis- charge of the St. Lawrence river with the varying levels of Lake On- tario. The modification of the flow of the Niagara river which will be produced by the proposed regulating works is so small when compared with other causes of change of level that the board is of the opinion that it cannot affect the depths of the waterways receiving the discharge to any material extent. "The effect of the regulation of the level of Lake Erie herein pro- posed would be to diminish the slopes of the Detroit and St. Clair rivers for any. given volume of discharge and to redistribute the flow. In the opinion of the board, the result of these changes would be to raise the low water stage about 3 feet in Lake Erie, 2 feet in Lake St. Clair and 1 foot in Lake Huron. This would obviously be of great benefit to naviga- tion. If the channel from Lake Huron to Lake Erie should be made 3) feet deep, the low water plane would be slightly lower, the difference in level probably not exceeding 0.3 foot. i "The board is of the opinion that works can be established for regu- lating the level of Lake Erie which will be of great value to navigation _ not only in Lake Erie, but also in the upper lakes and connecting water- ' ways, and will be of no injury to the lower waterways of the lake system, and that such works can be constructed at a cost which will be small compared with their benefit to commerce. In arriving at these conclu- sions, the board has utilized all the information it has been able to obtain within the period covering its investigations. Additional observations _ are needed for more precise determinations of the probable effects of ree- ulation upon the levels of the St. Clair, Detroit and St. Lawrence rivers, and the probable conditions of flow from the upper lakes. The board is, however, of the opinion that the uncertainties arising from this lack of _ complete data are fully covered by the ample provision made for varying the discharge at the regulating works. The results of observations in the St. Clair and Detroit rivers now in progress under the engineer de- ' partment, United States army, will probably be available before the board submits its final report, and any new information that may be thus ob- - tained will be introduced therein. "Attention is invited to the fact that the project is of an international character and can only be carried out after agreement between the United ~ States and Canadian governments." ae BOAT-DETACHING HOOKS---ANSWERING GEN. DUMONT. Editor Marine Review:--In reply to an article that appeared in the Marine Review of the 7th inst., signed James A. Dumont, supervising inspector-general, I desire to say that the report of the committee on life saving appliances of the board of supervising inspectors of steam vessels, made Jan. 7, 1894, on what is now known as the Standard auto- ' matic releasing hook, and referred to in Mr. Dumont's letter, is correct as fir as it goes. A test was made and the device failed to operate as stated, owing to defects that have since been discovered and corrected. In its present perfected state it will be found on all the boats of vessels of the United States army transport service, United States navy, revenue marine service, light-house department, coast survey, and many coastwise and lake steamers. Certainly this extensive use of the device does not bear out the opinion of the committee on life saving appliances of the board of supervising inspectors of steam vessels when they reported as stated by Mr. Dumont, "'that any dependence that may be placed upon such disengaging apparatus is so purely a matter of chance as to almost constitute its compulsory use a crime." On the contrary, the device has proved itself satisfactory in every respect, as daily receipts of orders from all parts of the country will testify. Mr. Dumont in his lack of justice fails to mention a later test of the device in its present perfected condition, given (as was the test of Jan. 27, 1894,."under personal direction of Mr. Raymond") on board of the U. S. Dexter in the harbor of New York in February, 1898, before the entire' board, at which he (Dumont) was present, when the Standard device was successfully lowered, detached and hooked on five times in succession, with the vessel under speed and ice making on everything to such an extent that it interfered with the operation of another device, tested at the same time, to such an extent as to make the demonstration with that device a complete and dangerous failure. Those who witnessed the operation of the Standard device at that time said it was the best demonstration they ever saw, and afer reading the meagre report of the. test by the board pronounced it a great injustice to the device. As regards the remark credited to General Grant (whose memory is revered and respected by all) some explanation is needed to show what bearing it has on the subject in hand. I: am of the opinion that were General Grant at the head of the inspection service the laws would be enforced irrespective of personal interests, and in a way that would be just to all. Dodging issues by flimsy technicalities would be out of the question, and our inspection service would be something of which every- one would be justly proud. If Mr. Dumont would try half as hard to understand the operation of the Standard automatic releasing hook as he does to place it outside the terms of the law, he would see that it more than complies with the statutes, inasmuch as it is reliably automatic, or can be operated by one person disengaging both ends of the boat simul- taneously, etc,, etc., as the law requires. His remarks regarding the operation of this device show that he does not understand it. It has no "forks" or "horns" and never had any, excepting the horns of the tangle he has gotten into regarding its operation and its compliance with the terms of the statutes. The releasing operation is not dependent on any lanyard whatever. If this device was operated and constructed as he says, I would agree with him that it does not comply with the statutes; but fortunately such is not the case, and I can not find words to express my surprise that a man in his position should try to maintain the stand he has taken on such a flimsy pretext. Practical men, familiar with the device, will certainly not now think him competent to judge of its utility for the purpose intended or to render a decision on the score of its com- pliance with the requirements. For his information let it be said that the lanyards are to aid in hooking the boat on, in hoisting it. out, and all practical sailors who have performed this perilous work regard this as a most important feature of the device. It may seem to Mr. Dumont that my interest in this matter is solely a pecuniary one, but I am quite sure that those called upon at a critical time to lower a boat for the purpose of making a rescue, or when aban- doning a vessel in time of disaster, will not give thought to whose in- terests are affected in the means provided them to safely and successfully perform the work. The stand taken by Mr. Dumont regarding the en- forcement of the law is, in my opinion, a violation of the statutes pure and simple, and I am strongly impressed with the thought that an investiga- tion by competent persons would reveal the real cause for evasion of the law. The lack of knowledge of the device displayed by Mr. Dumont, and his unjust desire to misrepresent it, is most apparent in his reference to the accident on board the U. S. S. Alliance, and will fall far short of the unfavorable impression he intended to create. It would seem that his letter was written with a view solely to refer to this incident, no matter how far removed from the subject in question, and to say the least it is decidedly unbecoming in a public official to resort to such measures, par- ticularly when they are so wide of the mark. As to the failure of the device at the test in January, 1894, referred to in Mr. Dumont"s letter, it is -well known that the most valuable inventions in use today have failed to operate satisfactorily when first tested, and have had to undergo num- erous changes before they were made perfect. 'In this respect the Stan- dard device is no different from others. All who are familiar with the construction of the hook well know that it would be impossible to detach the boat while it is hanging in the davits or until it is waterborne. In proof of this I will quote from a report made regarding a test of this device at the United States navy yard, League island, which report is dated Nov. 1, 1897, and signed by J. F. Hanscom, naval constructor, U.S. N.: "T have to report that I have this day, with the assistance of the executive officer of the U. S. R. S. Richmond, made such a trial of these hooks, by use of the cutter belonging to that ship, and hanging from the davits from the wharf. This cutter, with the number of men placed in her will approximate the weight of the life boat with crew. It required three men at each lanyard (six in all) to release the hooks. As an automatic releasing hook they worked well.' The mode of reeving the falls would cause both ends of the boat to detach irrespective of which end struck the water first. From the published account as quoted by Mr. Dumont of the accident on board of the Alliance it would seem that but one end of the boat unhooked, leaving it suspended by tle other end. Of the many sets of these hooks now in use there is not a single instance of failure or accident. It would be well, therefore, for Mr. Dumont to inform himself as to what devices are responsible for accidents before giving out in the future inferences of the kind contained in his letter. For his information (he ought to know it himself) I submit to him the name of the device that was responsible for the accident to which © he refers. It was the "Woods boat detaching and attaching apparatus," a style that was approved by the board in 1871 and disapproved in 1873. but which will be found in use today on steamers inspected and passed by the steamboat inspection service. In conclusion let me say that the Standard automatic releasing hook, which Mr. Dumont is so eager to. condemn, is a device about which he seems to know very little, although it has been adopted, as shown above, by other well-managed departments of the government that are fortunately no¥ in the political category. JAMES R. RAYMOND, Manager, Standard Automatic Releasing Hook Co. Chesebrough Bldg., 17 State St. New York, Dec. 19, 1899. TROUBLE WITH ANOTHER TIMBER DOCK. Late reports are to the effect that the Port Royal dry dock is caving in and that parts of the wooden structure have rotted or been eaten away by teredos to such an extent that $500,000 must be promptly expended for repairs or it will be necessary to abandon the dock altogether. This is the latest wooden dry dock to be completed for the government. When Capt. Evans took the battleship Indiana into it in 1896, he had to wait a month for unusually high tide to get out. This was the first time the dock was used and the only other instance was during the Spanish war when a monitor was docked there. At that time it leaked so copiously that its pumps could not keep it dry and it was regarded as too dangerous for further use. The Babcock & Wilcox Co. confirms the report circulated some time ago to the effect that they have purchased land and will erect a new plant of considerable size for the construction of boilers. The site purchased is in Bayonne, N. J., and consists of about 30 acres with a frontage oi 650 fect on the Kill Von Kull, where there will be 25 feet depth of water at low tide on the outer pier line. The works will have direct connection with the Central Railroad of New Jersey. The Riter-Conley Co. of Pittsburg, has the contract for the steel structural work for the buildings, which will provide a floor area of fully 160,000 feet, The new plant will, it is expected, be in operation late next spring and will have an annual capacity of 500,000 horse power in new boilers.