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

26 the amount of water which would enter in case of a collision (which, it seems to me, is the great danger to which these vessels are subjected), would be an advantage but the scope of my paper hardly covered the trans- Atlantic liners, so that it is only hinted at in the paper. In reply to Mr. Sadler, I would state that it seems to me that the in- terest which the United States takes in the International Conference of Safety at Sea is not the interest of the naval architects, but rather the interest of the passengers, the travel- ing public, and that it is to be hoped that our representatives will look at it from that point of view and insist that in the case of those vessels where a large number of lives are in- volved the greatest subdivision which is practicable shall be insisted upon. In reference to the wing compart- ments which were recommended in the area of the machinery spaces, perhaps the paper is not very plain, but the object of these wing compartments was to protect the control of the ves- sel, not to prevent the vessel from sinking, but a vessel at sea which is not under control is in a very much worse condition than one which is under control. By maintaining wing compartments abreast of the machin- ery spaces, it would limit the extent of the danger due to collision, so as to prevent it from interfering with the work of the machinery of the ship, which is of considerable importance and value. THE MARINE REVIEW Mr. Tawresey brought up the matter of the subdivision of the ships, this subdivision being satisfactory to the owner. It has been advocated by some ship owners, one at least, that trans- verse subdivisions will: be a help to the stowage of cargo, not a hindrance. If such is the case, then efficient transverse subdivision as advocated in my paper should not meet with op- position on behalf of ship owners, ex- cept in so far as additional first cost is concerned. Mr. Taylor's remarks rather took the horizontal subdivisions by means of decks, but I think I have replied to this in connection with one of the previous comments, . Construction of the Vessel Both of these papers are primarily related to the 'construction of the vessel, and not in the additional pre- cautions which should be taken in con- nection with safety in case of acci- 'dents, as to the prevention of fire by means of flue gases or the question of preserving the lives of passengers by means of lifeboats. Mr. Linnard's remarks relative to the protection of the anticipated sub- division by limiting the number of watertight doors and other openings, it seems to me is strictly in order, and should be advocated or insisted upon wherever it is practicable to make such protection intact. That would be one disadvantage in a watertight deck. that it must have openings in January, 1914 it, which must be capable of operation, and the consequent danger of their being left open when they are needed, when they ought to be closed and watertight. That is all that I have to say. R. H. Robinson:--I trust I was not misunderstood as recommending the substitution of compressed air for any other means of preserving the safety of the ship. I .quite agree with Mr. Gatewood in everything he said about compartment building, and other means of that character, for prevent- ing the loss of the ship. It was not so long ago that we were told that the. Titanic was unsinkable, and that state- ment had the force of considerable authority behind it. It did not prove to be" true. My recommendation of compressed air was purely on the basis of a simple additional safeguard--after you had taken all the proper precautions, that was the simplest thing you could put on to add to them. As to its taking a long time to use it, it is the thing upon which the sub- marine boats rely almost altogethér for most of their operations, and it takes but a fraction of a second to open a stop cock and a very few sec- onds for the air to come in and blow the water out. If the ship is designed, and the installation put in with that operation in view, I do not think it would take any great length of time ° to utilize the system. Adjournment was then taken for luncheon. An Emphatic Protest ods Leveled Against the La Follette Sea- men's Bill by the Naval Architects' Society IT THE request of the Council A Lewis Nixon offered a resolu- tion protesting against the so- called La Follette Seamen's bill, say- ing that it threatens the very exist- ence of shipbuilding in the United States, and would end the flying of the American flag on the high seas. The text of the resolution follows: "On Oct, 3, 1913, the United States senate passed Senate Bill 136. "This bill is alleged to promote the welfare of American seamen in the Merchant Marine of the United States. "This society does not concur in the view that a law which makes it impossible to fly the American flag on the oceans in the foreign trade is in the interests of the seamen of the country. It believes that legislation which will hinder the expansion of our coasting fleets and nullify much of the good that will result from the de- velopment of our deeper waterways is against the welfare of any of our people. "It is our judgment that as the re- sult of the enactment: of this bill American vessels will be driven from the foreign commerce upon the Pa- cific, that trade will be driven to Canadian ports and that vast damage will be done to our transportation systems on land and sea. "Tt believes that on account of the demoralization resulting from the false and misleading impressions to be created by such bill as to the re- lation between the seamen and the officers of our merchant vessels, the hazard of the sea will be greatly add- ed to and that the safety of persons and conditions in transit at sea will be threatened. "The bill is vicious selective class legislation based upon misrepresenta- tion, and which defeats the very ob- ject that it is alleged to further. "Therefore, Be It Resolved, That the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, representing the shipbuilding and allied interests of the United States, protests against the ehagtment of Senate Bill 136, as operating against the upbuilding of our merchant marine, reducing the opportunity of employment of Amer- ican seamen, adding to the risk of life and property at sea and sapping the commercial independence of the