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

1901.) - MARINE REVIEW. to give way. The Siemens at this time had performed the duty imposed on her by statute. Her master had signified that it was not safe for the Star to pass. It is claimed by the Star that the testimony of witness Geary, who, up to the time of collision, was wheelsman on the Siemens, establishes that the Siemens crowded the Star out of her course and that she was at fault in directing her course to starboard. The claim is that starboarding brought the Siemens over toward the side the Star had signalled she desired to take and in that way her course was impeded. This is denied by the master of the Siemens and other witnesses on board the Siemens and Holley. The Siemens had proceeded in her usual and ordinary course. The Star obstinately pursued her course and was soon abreast of the Siemens, causing her to sheer to starboard. Both vessels made the turn into Little Rapids cut at the black stake nearly abreast. The Siemens made the turn at the light crib leading into the cut close to the can buoy--considerably closer to the buoy than was ordinarily deemed necessary. The turn was to starboard about four points. The Siemens ported her helm. Her helm failing to respond readily, she hard-aported and with the aid of a "kick ahead" made the turn at the bend and pro- ceeded down the cut. A "kick ahead' increases the velocity of the screw and brings the current from the propeller wheel against the rudder in making the turn. At this time the Star's bow was amidships of the Sie- mens and 30 ft. distant. The Siemens checked to half speed. The Star drew swiftly along side. The Siemens immediately steadied after the turn was made on the west bank of the cut. The Star kept forging ahead and when her boiler house was abreast the Siemens' pilot house the im- pact took place. The Star swung across the channel, striking the west bank of the river. The stern anchor of the Siemens was let go and the current caught her stern, shifting her ahead past the Star, 200 ft. from the point of collision. The Siemens bow was imbedded in the clay bank with her stern swinging across the channel. The North Star was on the east bank. The evidence is conflicting as to whether the collision was due to a sheer of the Siemens to starboard at the time the Star was alongside and swiftly passing, or whether it was due to the failure of the Siemens to efficiently manage her port helm. Wheelsman Geary says the Siemens' starboarding when she was near Bayfield rock brought her over to the northward of the course and over toward the side the Star had signaled she would take; that the Siemens took a broad turn at the crib, in order to unduly crowd the Star out of her course and to prevent her from pass- ing, and that if she had hard-aported her wheel at all it was after the collision. The conduct of this witness after the collision and his state- ments to impeaching witnesses are not such as to inspire confidence in his testimony. The evidence of the Siemens' wheelsman (Ferris) shows that he was near the wheel and ready to relieve Geary. While he had charge of the wheel he received an order to "port more" and to "hard- aport," but on cross-examination he says that the Siemens was not hard- aported until after the impact. Respondent's witness (Sweet) says that the Siemens' bow was from 400 to 450 ft. from the crib when she struck the Star and that she was further from the crib than he ever saw a boat go before. But I believe the weight of the evidence establishes that the turn was made by the Siemens close to the black stake. CAPTAIN OF THE STAR MISJUDGED SPEED OF SIEMENS. Celerity was the chief object of the Star. Her speed steadily increased from the time she signalled the ahead vessel at the Bayfield rock, so that within a half mile her bow passed the ahead vessel going at the rate of 9 miles an hour. I conclude that the Star anticipated her greater capabili- ties for speed would permit her safely to overtake the vessel ahead. When she arrived at the bend there was abundant navigable space, so that she could have reversed or checked with absolute safety. Instead of pursuing this prudent course at the time the Siemens ported her wheel and stead- ied for the narrow channel, she followed the Siemens around the bend. Her captain says: 'The Siemens steadied her wheel and I steadied the Star, and he ran probably a length and then started to port again and [| did the same thing, and I ran down that way about on a line with the east edge of the cut, just barely enough to clear the red can buoy." Re- spondent's evidence does not make it clear that the seamanship of the Siemens when making the turn or when lower down in the channel was such as to impute to her such fault or careless navigation as would hold her in any degree responsible for the collision. Assuming that when the collision became imminent the Siemens did not hard-aport her helm, it yet appears that the collision was then unavoidable. If the Siemens did commit any error of seamanship while in this situation I regard it as one committed in extremis and therefore excusable. There is a conflict of evidence as to the locality of the impact between the Siemens and the Star. Whether it occurred at the bend or in the prohibited channel about 1,200 ft. below, is not material. It satisfactorily appears from the evidence that the barge Holley was abreast the light- house 70 ft. from the black stake, where the turn was made. When we give consideration to the length of the tow and to the evidence of Capts. Gunderson and Stewart, it is clear that the vessels came together about 800 ft. from the bend. There was crowding and backing resulting in the Star settling on the easterly bank of the cut, about 400 ft. from the point of collision. The Siemens brought up on the westerly bank of the pro- hibited channel with her stern toward the east. The Holley having broken her anchor chain in her endeavor to stop after the first impact, came up striking the starboard quarter of the Siemens, forcing her against the Star. Respondents claim that the Siemens and Holley were each at fault in not keeping a proper and sufficient lookout; that the Siemens was particularly at fault in its failure to immediately respond to the Star's signal when she arrived at the government pier. Proofs offered on the trial render it only necessary to consider the alleged fault of the Siemens. She cannot be held for contributory fault because of the failure of her captain to hear the first passing signal sounded by the Star immediately after she left the government pier, although treasury rule 5 for St. Mary's river and pilot rule 6 require the steamer ahead to immediately answer a passing signal. No presumption of acquiescence or of concurrence can arise under the rules of navigation applicable to St. Mary's river from failure by a vessel ahead to sound an assenting or dissenting signal. Pass- ing a vessel going in the same direction is prohibited unless a mutuality of purpose be established. Communication between the overtaking vessel and the vessel ahead by signals of the character and number prescribed by law is absolutely essential. Manifestly the interchange of signals by blasts of the whistle must plainly indicate the manner in which the vessel astern intends to pass and likewise when such passing may safely be done. Silence on the part of the Siemens when the initial North Star signal was sounded should have insured circumspection and deliberate wariness by the North Star. The captain of the Siemens testified that he did not hear the Star's first signal; that the first whistles that he heard were when the Siemens was abreast the Bayfield rock. It may well be that he was so occupied at the time that the first signals were not heard. The failure to hear the North Star's whistle was not a contributory cause of the col- lision. It in no sense misled the North Star, for when her signals were repeated they were answered and such answer gave abundant time for the North Star to keep away by reversing or checking her speed. The Siemens' lookout was not at his post when the Star's first signal was sounded. Neither was this a contributory fault. This violation of rule 28 of the White law, in view of the North Star's endeavor to pass without receiving an assent, had nothing to do with the disaster. FRENCH VIEW OF THE ENGLISH BOILER REPORT. Marc Landry in La Figaro of March 17 discusses the recent report of the British admiralty committee upon the Belleville boiler. He advises all French engineers to read the report carefully. It should be stated that the report is not favorable to the Belleville boiler. The gist of his dis- cussion is as follows: "The English commission, called the water-tube boiler commission, was presided over by Vice Admiral Sir Compton Donville, assisted by some ten machinists and engineers of the royal navy or engineers of great commercial navigation companies. Their competence was well known although we find in the report published by them certain assertions that show that the special question of the water tube boilers must have escaped the studies of some of the commissioners. It is, in fact, surprising that the English commission has discovered in the month of March, 1901, that the water tube boilers are superior from a strategical point of view to the cylindrical boilers, seeing that for ten years and more all the navies have proclaimed this superiority. It is also surprising that the commission declares in the seventh paragraph of its report that the cylindrical boilers have, as far as fuel economy is concerned, some advantages over the water tube boilers, when the general experience is otherwise. Our own ironclad Gaulois, for example, consumes 1% Ibs. of coal per horse power per hour--a figure which no cylindrical boiler has ever attained. There is good reason for English sympathy for the cylindrical boiler--it is that no English construction company has to date been able to produce a good water tube boiler for great ships. They were bound to act as good oun ee in not absolutely cancelling the old boiler dear to English uilders. "The French fleet is considerably equipped with Belleville boilers and they have always given the best results. Apart from our ironclads and our squadron vessels there are a number of cruisers on long voyages which have acquitted themselves admirably. The Alger, the Descartes, the Pascal, the Bruix, the Amiral-Charnier, the Bugeaud have recently served in China or in Crete; the Protet and Regaud de Genouilly have cruised for a long time in the Pacific and have proved the endurance and good working qualities of their boilers. The official reports of their cap- tains are unanimous upon the subject. And it is not only in the navy that this boiler is appreciated. Such packet boats as the Australian, the Poly- nesien and Armand-Behic of the Miesageries Maritime 'Co. have been navi- gating with the Belleville boiler since 1890 and have run over 200,000 knots to the entire satisfaction of their captains and engineers. Such other rapid packet boats in the service from Dieppe to Newhaven as the Samise and Manche are also provided with the Belleville boilers and their service is excellent. How is it that the conclusions of the English com- mission are in conflict with the experience of the French navy? The reason is simple. The English navy has always neglected to initiate its mechanical staff in the running of the Belleville boiler and it is want of instruction which has caused some failures. The commission admits this in the eleventh paragraph of its report. The moral of this English re- port is that it is less the apparatus which is to be improved than it is the staff which is called to operate it. Time shall tell whether the admiralty will consent to acknowledge that its engineers are not able to use a boiler that is so well used elsewhere." SILVER SERVICE FOR THE ILLINOIS. _ The battleship Illinois is to have one of the most beautiful silver ser- vices in the navy. The pieces comprise a large punch bowl, ladle and stand, a smaller bowl of the same pattern, three massive dishes and two candelabra. The mammoth punch bowl, the largest piece in the set, is 2 ft. in diameter and 17 in. high. On one side is the name "Illinois" in oxi- dized silver, and beneath it appears the seal of the state. On the other side is the inscription: "Presented to the United States battleship Illinois by the citizens of the state in honor of which the ship was named." The inside of this great bowl, which will hold ten gallons, is lined with gold. The smaller punch bowl shows exactly the same treatment, and the let- tering and seal appear on every piece in the set. Specially worthy of mention are the two great candelabra. Each has eight trunk branches, and these are twined in a graceful sweep, making a circular network of heavy silver tubing surmounting the ornamental base. It has been decided to make the presentation of this magnificent collection to the warship some time during the last days of the present month at Newport. News, where the Illinois will be put into commission. Invitations will be sent to all citizens of the state who have contributed sums towards the pur- chase of the gift. President McKinley and members of his cabinet and representatives of the army and navy will also be invited to attend the ceremonies. Governor Yates and his staff will attend. The committee on design, which was intrusted with the selection of the gift, consists of the following: H. N. Higinbotham, John R. Tanner, Franklin MacVeagh, C. L. Hutchinson, Frank O. Lowden, E. G. Keith, W. Penn Nixon, John R. Walsh and John W. Bunn. It has been arranged that Frank K. Hackett, the assistant secretary of the navy, will retire from office when Secretary Long returns to Washing- ton from his summer vacation. This is in accordance with the express wish of Mr. Hackett. :