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

374 water than we have had. in previous years. Respectfully yours, L. A. BrapsHAw, Chief Engineer, St. Brownell. eek pr July 21, 1914. Dear Sir Referring to the fresh water supply on Owego I beg to advise you that our new system is giving the best of satisfaction. - With the addition of our new tanks we are able to carry from ten to twelve days' supply which enables us to take our supply from the very best waters of the lakes. I feel that our system is @ great improvement over the old method of filling tanks. And this. line has taken a step in advance of all other lines in safeguarding against impure water. Yours truly, ' Gro. W. Moors, los Master, Str. Owego. July 22, 1914. Dear Sir :-- In regard to our fresh water supply and tank capacity of Owego, I must say it is a big improvement over the old method of supplying and keeping water. I know positively that by using the same pump and sea cock for general service and for filling tanks that in places like Buffalo, Milwaukee, Cleve- land or Chicago, where you have oc- casion to use the same pump it cannot be kept in a sanitary condition as it handles more or less oil, sewage and other impurities from the harbor, which will adhere to* pipes, valves and even more so to the rubber hose, which is more or less harmful to the crew. So with these improvements I know conditions will be more healthful, as I have often noticed an oily taste in the water, and as it could not have come from midlake it must have lodged in the pump, pipes or hose because of using the pump in port. As to tank capacity I should judge we could keep a supply for 12 to 14 days which is more than enough for any conditions. : Yours truly, Irvin A. FRANCOMBE, Chief Engineer, Str. Owego. ° July 23, (F914. Dear Sir :-- I think the system installed for filling tanks for drinking and cooking purposes is as near perfection as 'possible. I think the supply would last about ten days. Yours truly, W. M. Corrrett, Master, Str. G. A. Richardson. THE MARINE REVIEW July 27, 1914. Dear Sir :-- mi In reply to your letter regarding the fresh water system will say it is the purest and most sanitary system yet in- stalled on any lake steamer. I think the tanks would last at least eight days. Yours truly," W. R. Burton, Chief Engr., Str. G. A. Richardson. Buffalo, July 28, 1914. Dear Sir :-- : In reply to your inquiry relative to fresh water system installed on Steamer McCullough, I wish to say to you that I consider it an acquisition and should be installed aboard all Great Lakes craft. I have observed very carefully the working of the system during our ex- perience with it and find the fresh water supply on McCullough much finer than I have seen in years. A good proof of this is that I have not opened my medicine chest since we started out this spring. Furthermore, I think it is a matter for the steamboat inspection service to take up and make compul- sory. The endurance of our fresh water supply is about eight days in port at this time of year. I feel that the crews of the line are much indebted to you for the instituting of the system. I am, very truly, Yours, Joun C. HEANEY, Master, Str. McCullough. July 27, 1914, Dear Sir :-- In reply to your letter regarding fresh water supply. The system works satis- factorily and furnishes an abundance of pure water. There has been no sickness among the crew, especially the firemen, during the hot weather. Yours truly, W. H. SHELDON, Chief Engineer, Str. McCullough. July 20, 1914. Dear Sir :-- In reply to your letter would say that I have not had much opportunity to try out the fresh water system because of ship going into ordinary but from what experience I did have with it am sure that it is a fine thing and every steamer on the lakes should have a system of the same kind. Our present tankage is good for about five days in port. Very truly yours, Rogert B. WILKINSON, Master, Str. Binghamton. July 22, 1914, Dear Sir :-- Regarding fresh water system in- October, 1914 stalled om Str. Binghamton I did not have much time for observation because the ship was laid up. The tanks hold about six or seven days' supply with full crew. We had water in the tank about ten days and there was no evi- dence of any scum or impurities in that | time. I believe it to be an improve- ment that should have been made long ago. Respectfully, CuHas. E. RosInson, Chief Engineer, Str. Binghamton. Why Did She Sink? It cannot be said that naval archi- tects have yet obtained very much in- formation from the Empress of Ire- land inquiry that will help them to construct ships capable of keeping afloat after being struck as that vessel was. One of the examining counsel asked a witness if he knew why the vessel sank. The question was too simple to require more than the smile which the witness gave in reply, and the gentle rebuke of Lord Mersey when he said that he thought they could all answer that question. But later Lord Mersey himself declared that up to that time the evidence had completely failed to show why the vessel sank. Apparently only two of 'the watertight compartments had been flooded, and so she should have kept afloat. Percy A. Hillhouse, the naval architect to the Fairfield Co--who built the vessel--stated that she ought not to have sunk if only two compart- ments were flooded. But she did sink. And if the cause of her sinking is not made clear the whole theory of ship designing will be left in a condition of confusion. She did not sink because she was rammed by the Storstad, but because, as a result of that ramming, too much water obtained access to her holds. If only two compartments were torn open naval architects have been all wrong in their calculations, ' and all other large liners now afloat are as unsafe as sad experience has proved the Empress of Ireland was. If, on the other hand, the vessel re- ceived more damage. than comes out in the evidence, the naval designers may yet be vindicated. If the matter is not cleared up it will be a very awkward business altogether.--Fair- play. Mitchell Davis & Son, Solomons, Md., is building a wooden tug for P. Sanford Ross Co., of Jersey City, N. J., to be 75 feet by 18 feet by 7% feet. The machinery of the tug Vio- lette will be installed in the new hull but a new boiler will be built.