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

was anchored just outside the launch- ing slip from. which point of vantage an admirable view could be obtained. The event was successful in , every way. At the conclusion of the launch luncheon was served to the launching party at the Detroit clubyPresident Antonio C. Pessan6 acting as toast- master. Among those present were: Mr. and Mrs. J. E. Davidson, Mr. and Mrs. -Hi ko Shaw, Mr. and Mrs. 8. P. Cranage; 'Mr..oand Mrs. J. J. Groas, Mr. and Mrs.,J.C.. McCabe, Mr. and Mrs. .Frank J... Buckley, C. A. Eddy, GC Ne Smith?J: Bec Saalley,. Wit. Loringer, J. R- Watrous and Mrs. James Davidson, of Bay City; Mr. and Mrs. Walter Bachman, of Detroits;,Philetus Wi Gates, of Chicago, and R.jB. Wallace and H. N. Herriman, of Cleveland. The Milinokett will be sailed by Capt. A. J. Mahon, now in the steamer Penobscot, who will take with him his chief engineer, Edward H. Hoff- man. The steamer Hemlock, building for the Lackawanna Steamship Co., of Buffalo, at the yard of the American Ship Building Co. at Bay City, was successfully launched on The vessel was christened by Miss Emma Arnold, daughter of the chief engineer of the fleet. The Hemlock, though not as large as some 'of the boats built lately, is constructed on: extremely graceful lines and is a fine piece of work. The Hemlock has been chartered by her owners to . Pickands, Mather & Co., of Cleveland. She will be commanded by Capt. John McNeill, of Cleveland, and P. F. Tonniff, also of Cleveland, will be he: chief engineer. The dimensions of the vessel are as follows: Length over-all, 440: ft.; keel, 420 ft.; beam, 52 ft. and depth of hold, 28 ft. Her engines are tviple-expansion, 22 x oD x 58, with. 42. in, stroke The ..boat has been fitted with every conveni- ence, including electric apparatus for sound:ng her whistles. She will go irto commiss'on Aug. 3. STEAM VESSELS MEETING OR CROSSING. = Where two steam vessels ing'end on, or nearly end on, so as to involve risk of collision, the rules re- quire that each shall alter her course to starboard, so that each may pass on the port side of the other. both. must: port their helms, although collision would be avoided by one port- ing. Vessels are meeting end on when by day each vessel sees the masts or the line of the keel of the other in line, or S. Harsha and Miss. poe -wessels.'would pass clear, plies) for the law does not leave the Saturday. - sels approaching on are meet-. The maneu-. ver must be made in due season, and _ "THE MarRINE REVIEW nearly in line. with its own, and by night when: they are in such a position that each sees both the side lights of: the other. Vessels are not meeting end on when the red is opposed to the red, or the green to the green, or when, being ~ -on parallel courses, the would The for: it: might vessels pass clear if each kept her course. rule is then inapplicable, tend to promote rather than to avoid col-. lisions. In case starboarding or port- ing, as the case may be, out of abundant caution, is not a fault, Where vessels are on parallel but not meeting courses, one vessel has no right- to cross' the bows of the other, and the vessel which insists on the port helm rule in such case,assumes the risk of the maneuver. But if jit, is not clearly apparent that the the rule ap- case to the uncertainty of a speculation upon chances. sels meeting end on to pass port to port does not preclude them from passing starboard to 'starboard if the movement for such purpose is seasonably com- menced. When two vessels are crossing so as to invalue risk of collision, the vessel. which has the other on her own star- board side, must keep out of the way. This rule is equally applicable to river and harbor navigation. Vessels are ap- proaching on crossing courses when not meeting end on, or nearly end. on, or on parallel courses as defined in the pre- ceding section, or are not in the posi- tion of overtaking vessels, and the rule applies where the vessel approaching on the starboard side would not actually cross, but would strike the other amid- ships. Thus, where the courses of two vessels of different speed going in the: same general direction corverge so that each has the cther beiring forward of the beam, they are on crossing course;. Vessels are not on crossirg cours s aft- er one has crossed the track of the other. Two steamers goirg in the sane gen- eral direction on the same route cannot be considered 'on crossing courses where to cross the rounding a the faster -oat attempts bows of the other while point in the channel. The cases are coats wheter ves- nearly opposite courses within a point or two of meet- ing are to be considered as meeting erd on or are on crossing courses. A simi- lar conflict is found in the case of steam- ers going in the same general direction on converging courses, where the ques- tion is whether the vessels are to be considered on crossing... courses, . or whether the rule as to overtaking ves- sels applies. But this question seems now to be settled by the rule defining an overtaking vessel as one coming up with another more than two points The rule requiring ves- ¢ 27 -abaft her beam, that is, aft of the range ~ of her 'colored. lights, ard this was the rule previously adopted: by a large num- ber of cases. (TO BE CONTINUED.) THE KEARSARGE AND KEN- TUCKY USELESS. -- The reports appearing in the public prints recently, beginning with an. arti- cle published in The Navy, of Washing- ton, attacking the utility of the battle- ships Kearsarge and Kentucky as fight- ing machines has calléd forth a- state- ment from Rear Admiral Brownson,' now. acting head of the HANY. depart- ment. The Navy's editorial stated that some of the guns of the two battleships were 'unprotected ard also that their armor belts were badly placed. _ Rear Admiral Brownson's statement is as follows: "That there were defects in the Ore- gon class and the Kentucky and Kear- sarge is well known; in fact, these de- fects were discovered before the com- pletion of those ships, but the wonder is: that there were so few defects, consid- ering that they were the first heavy battleships built in this country. "Compared with the battleships of other nations designed and built at the same time, the Oregon class was conspic- uously superior; in fact, that class was referred to by the leading British tech- nical papers at the time as the 'peerless' battleship, and the interior arrangement and other points were of special excel- lence. "Jt is true. that their arnioy. (was badly placed, but that arcse from the ad- dition to. the ships of a great amount ~ of: material, stores. and machinery not included in the original design. It is also true that they lack balanced turrets, but when they were built there were no such turrets in any ravy., Their eight- inch ammunition tubes also were not sufficiently protected. "As to the criticism directed at the large size of the ports in the turrets, this has been corrected in later' designs by bringing the trunniors:of the guns nearer to the front of the turrets, so that battleships of later design are free from this defect. : "As gun platforms, which is the- main purpose. of the ship, the Oregon class. has no: superior, and even at', this late date they would give a good account of themselves in action. In fact, taking everything into consideration, it is only surprising that we built as good ships at 'that tinve. "T am. of the opinion that if the whole situation could be known, it would be seen that other nations have had, and are still having, their troubles in their shipbuildirg programmes." Bs