september, 1912 tion in tolls upon coastwise traffic would seem to be somewhat unreal. If American ships had a monopoly of coastwise traffic when they went around Cape Horn they will have it when they go through the canal, - whether or not the canal were American property and whether or not it ran through American territory." The italics are ours. Certainly no one ever sug- gested that the treaty suspends the operation of our navigation laws and that view of it alone ought to settle all controversy. In our opinion, the provision excluding ships owned in part by the railroads from the use of the canal is unwise. It would seem as though the powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission are sufficient to pre- vent any discrimination in rates against independent water carriers. Moreover, it is to be presumed that the Canadian Pacific and the Grand Trunk Pacific vessels may pass through, as it would be scarcely within our jurisdiction to legislate for other nations. It is not likely that the provision admitting foreign- built ships to American register when owned by Amer- icans will be taken advantage of to any extent. They could not enter the coastwise trade and their oper- ating costs would naturally be higher under the American flag than under any other flag. The Amer- ican ship builders protested against the provision, but the president did not think much of it and apparently for that reason. The canal will be opened to traffic in September, 1913, and the bill at any rate outlines a plan to pre- pare for the event. : Motor Lifeboats for Ships There can be no doubt that Lord Mersey's recom- mendations that the British Board of Trade shall be empowered to direct that one or more of the boats to be carried by ships shall be fitted with some form of mechanical propulsion, will give yet another filip to the motor boat industry. Time and again it has been seen how useful one or more motor lifeboats would be on board passenger liners in cases of emerg- ency. And there is really no reason why an equally useful sphere of operations should not lie before craft of this type in connection with ocean-going cargo steamers. Indeed it is almost impossible to limit the field. : In the case of the Titanic it can well be understood that power boats would have proved of great service in towing other boats away from the sinking ship. Again such a craft, being of considerable pqwer and weight, would almost certainly have been able to rescue many of those who, when the Titanic sank, were left to perish, simply because those in the life- boats of the ordinary type were afraid to go back to succor drowning people, lest their craft should be overturned. a In the ordinary case of abandonment at sea the motor lifeboat would be-sure to demonstrate its un- doubted practicability. Suppose, for instance, a ship THE MARINE REVIEW 305 is abandoned some 300 or 400 miles from shore, and all on board are able to leave her in the boats. If her equipment includes a powerful motor boat, this craft will be able to tow all the boats towards the land. Again, should a ship founder in a stretch of ocean which is some distance from the recognized trade routes, the motor boat could take herself and the rest of the boats to a position where there was more prob- ability of a passing steamer being sighted. While Lord Mersey does not in so many words recommend motor boats, he uses the phrase "fitted with some kind of mechanical propulsion". That, however, can only mean motor boats, for the steam launch could not in a case of sudden disaster be brought into service with the same expedition as the quick-starting motor boat. Such a craft, of course, will need to be carefully looked after by the officers of the ship, but on pass- enger liners it may be assumed that the strictest or- ders would be issued from headquarters in regard to the manner in which the efficiency of the motor boat or boats is to be maintained. As a matter of fact, some liners are already using motor craft with excel- lent results. Lord Mersey's recommendations fore- shadow a big demand for motor lifeboats for liners, while it is also possible that cargo steamers will in ever-increasing degree realize their value. Large Floating Docks Owing to the recent departure of two large float- ing docks from ship yards at Barrow and Birkenhead for Montreal and Portsmouth, respectively, there has been aroused a good deal of public interest in floating docks. There has, however, been some confusion as to the size of these docks, one of which has been described as being the largest in the world, which is not correct. The new floating dock at Portsmouth for the admiralty is of just the same size and design as' that built by Messrs. Swan, Hunter & Wigham Richardson, Ltd., Wallsend, for the British admiralty, and sent to the river Medway this summer. These twin floating docks, designed to lift battleships up to 32,000 tons displacement, are the largest yet built or owned in Great Britain, but still larger are the 40,000- ton floating dock, owned by the German government at Kiel, and the 35,000-ton dock belonging to Messrs. Blohm & Voss at Hamburg. PARTICULARS OF SOME OF THE LARGEST FLOATING DOCKS IN THE WORLD. Depth over Lifting Clear keel Dock capacity. Length. width. blocks. Tons. et Ft. Ft. Owners. WiC Gi eos 40,000 656 154 351%, German government. PampuUEe oo 35,000 720 108% 33 Blohm & Voss. Medway 52.0%. 32,000 680 113 36 British admiralty. Portsmouth 32,000 680 1413 36 British admiralty. Montreal: =... 77 25,000 600 100 27% Canadian Vickers Ltd. Hamburg 271 25,000 52534 108% 33 Vulcan Company. olan ate eas 22,500 5843, 111% 37 Austro-Hung'r'n govt. Rio de Janeiro 22,000 550: 100 39 Brazilian govt. Hamburg 2.2. 20,000 S114 97 26 Reiherstieg Co. It is astonishing what a volume of business this country is doing, considering the fact that it is- a presidential year. Gone are the days when politics disturbed business.