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

22 MARINE REVIEW. [June 28. ELLIS MARINE PLUMBING SYSTEM. There is shown herewith longitudinal section and plan of some plumbing recently placed in a new steam yacht by the Ellis Marine Plumbing Co., No. 82 Broadway, New York. This system has been placed in the Neaira, Saghaya, Marion and Carmen, and is also going into a number of new vessels now under way. It consists of a drainage tank, in the most convenient place on the vessel's bottom, a steam ejector, operated by float valves whenever the tank is filled, and suitable = o Owners Torcer: Gtasrs' Room No. t Owners Koom Dres0eR. pe a Guesrs' Toner. VESTS' Room 0.2 BERTH, Waroeese. © FLAN SHOWING PLUMBING FIXTURES. drains from all closets, 'bowls, sinks and other plumbing, all led to the tank. It offers the advantages of allowing the owner to use in his vessel any plumbing that he can use in his house on shore. Perfect ventilation is provided and the whole system [becomes sanitary. Wihere the Kenney Flushometer is used on closets, etc., the system weighs less and is more quiet than the ordinary pump closets. Water may be supplied by gravity or pressure or both, as desired means are provided for emptying the tank when steam is not in the boilers, and the ship's side is pierced in but one place for the entire system, as against from two to twenty in OOOO WATER. the old systems. The loop shown between the sea valve and the check valve on the ejector pipe is carried above the water line and prevents sea water flooding the tank in case of accident, while allowing the sea valve to remain normally open. All pipes shown in the drawings are covered and the effect is that of house plumbing. Many sets of this apparatus are in daily use in hotels, apartment houses and public buildings in New York City, where sub-cellars are below the sewer line, and the economy and reliability, with the free- dom from odor, has caused the prominent Atlantic steamship companies to seriously consider installing it on their passenger steamers. ISSUING INVITATIONS FROM PARIS. _ The following invitation, written in French and issued from Paris, is being sent to manufacturers in all parts of the world by President E. N. Hurley of the Standard Pneumatic Tool 'Co. of Chicago: "You are cordially invited to visit at the Paris Exposition the exhibit of our products in the machinery department at the Champs de Mars and Vincennes park. It consists of a complete installation of pneumatic machines in operation, showing the great variety of work to which these tools and pneumatic accessories may be adapted. While at the exposition, we hope you will be able to visit our installation, which no doubt will be very interesting to you. We will be happy to be at your disposal and to give you all the information you may desire." The Nickel Plate road will sell excursion tickets for the 4th of July at one fare for the round trip, within a radius of 200 miles, good going: July 3 and 4 and returning until the 5th inclusive. Write, wire, 'phone or call on nearest agent, C. A. Asterlin, T. P. A., Ft. Wayne, Ind., or E. A. Akers, C, P. & T,.A., Cleveland, O. 107, June 28 CAMBERING OF STEAMSHIP'S KEELS. HEAVY JUDGMENT AGAINST SHIP BUILDERS----HIGH COURT DECISION IN A CASE THAT WILL PROVE OF SPECIAL INTEREST TO NAVAL ARCHITECTS. From a correspondent in England. In the House of Lords--present the lord chancellor, Lords Mac- Naghten, Morris and Davey--judgment was given in the appeal from the first division of the court of session by Burrell & Son, ship owners, Glas- gow, in the action at their instance against Russell & Co., ship 'builders, Port Glasgow. According to the appellants, a contract was entered into between the parties in 1898, under which the respondents 'built four steamers for the appellants. It was subsequently found that all the vessels had permanent cambers or arches in their keels, which prevented them from sitting fairly on ordinary blocks, and accordingly added to the. risk and cost of docking them. The appellants maintained that the defect was a very serious one, and they sued the respondents for £40,000. They contended that it was the universal practice to build iron and steel steam- ships with absolutely straight keels. The contract did not specify that the. keels should be straight, no more did the contract for building a house specify that the walls should be plumb, but the plans and models showed the vessels with straight keels. The appellants also alleged breach of contract as to the co-efficient of fineness and as to the draught. The respondent replied that the steamers were built with cambers, as was a common practice, and were so built at the sight and to the instructions of the appellants. The co-efficients of fineness were to conform to con- tract, and the respondents did not contract for any given draught. The appellants took delivery in full knowledge of the camber, of the draught, and of the co-efficients. The appellants had failed to show that any damage was suffered in consequence of the alleged breaches of contract. The court of sessions assoilzied the respondents, and the appeal was taken. The arguments recently heard before the House of Lords oc- cupied eleven days. The lord chancellor, who gave the leading judgment, said that this + was an action upon a contract whereby the pursuers agreed to take and the defenders agreed to deliver for an agreed price four large steamers, The contract was in writing, and no dispute arose as to the construction of the contract itself. In some cases a question might arise whether plans intended to show the subject of the contract had 'been sufficiently incorporated into it as to make each part of the plan the expression of a contract obligation. No such question could arise here, because by the express language of the contract itself the plans were made a part of the contract. In this case it was undoubtedly true that the ships were received and accepted without complaint. But it was also true that within quite a reasonable time complaint was made. It was also true that there was a singular taciturnity on the part of the defenders in replying to the complaint. He might, in what he had further to say, speak of the sub- ject matter of the contract as if it were only one ship, but it will be un- derstood that the same observations were intended to apply to all four. The first complaint made by the pursuers was that the ship was cambered. This the pursuers alleged was contrary to the contract, and in this UL WATER TANK. LONGITUDINAL SECTION. SHOWING PLUMBING allegation they were borne out by the plan, which showed a straight keel, and which was undoubtedly part of the contract. It had hardly been suggested that any ship was intended to have a cambered keel when it was trading. The utmost that had 'been established by the evidence was that in the actual process of building, and in order to produce the ultimate result of a straight keel, a small camber might be devised so as to counter- act the tendency of what was called "sagging" arising from the greater weight which the ship was subjected to amidship, but it did not appear to be gravely disputed that a permanently cambered keel for a vessel when actually trading, and after the process of building had been com- pleted, would 'be a serious defect. Under these circumstances it might be well contended that, even if no express contract had been entered into, the defenders were bound to deliver a ship which should have a straight keel, and not one subject to such danger and inconvenience as would be involved in keeping a cambered keel. He could not doubt that it was established by an overwhelming body of testimony that the keel was cambered, and cambered to a very considerable extent. He was, there- fore, of opinion that the pursuers had established prima facie, at all events, a cause of action against the defenders. The defenders alleged that the steamers were built with -cambers, as was matter of common practice, and were so built at the sight and to the instruction of the pur- suers. As mater of law, his lordship was of opinion that it was not competent to vary a written contract in the way that the defenders sug- gested that the written contract was varied: and it would be impossible to illustrate better the danger of permitting a written contract to be so varied than by pointing to the evidence in this case, and, apart from 'the question of law, he entertained no doubt whatever that the evidence the defenders: had offered on this subject was wholly insufficient to establish the proposition that they were freed from their contract obligation to supply a straight keel, even if by law such evidence could avail them.