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

THE MARINE RECORD. MORE FOOLISHNESS OF THE STEAMBOAT INSPECTORS’ DEPARTMENT. We have frequently pointed out the general incapacity of the Steamboat Inspection Department, and also recently noted that one of the Supervising Inspectors had written to his local staff to carry certain news items, which the RECORD had inquired for and worked up, to another journal. Finding from his instruction that the RECORD sought cer- tain information this Supervising-Inspector of the U.S. Steamboat Inspection Service instructed his local inspectors to convey the information to other papers, thus violating our correspondence with the Supervising-Inspector General of Steamboats, at Washington, and, in a manner, or to that extent, betraying his trust. That the Supervising-Inspectors of Steamboats are mak- ing a stupid owl of the Secretary of the Treasury, is evident from the following : “In an editorial under the caption of ‘Unjust to Sailing Ship Masters,’ we stated that the rule passed by the Board of Supervising-Inspectors of Steam Vessels at its last annual meeting ‘obliging sailing shipmasters to serve three years in a subordinate capacity in a steam vessel before they could be licensed as masters of such,’ was unjust, and gave our rea- sons for so stating. Two of the supervising inspectors in courteous communicatious contend that we are wrong and ask us to carefully read the rules which they forward and which they contend provide that a sailing shipmaster has to serve only one year as a first officer of a steamship to be eli- gible to command her if he has had two years previous ex- perience on a sailing vessel. That the supervising inspec” tors referred to, and that our readers as well, may under stand that they are mistaken, we print the rule in dispute, which reads as follows : “No original license as master of ocean or coastwise steam- ers shall be issued to any person who has not had three years’ experience on steam or sail vessels preceding the applica- tion, one year of such experience to be as chief mate of steam vessels. No original license as chief mate of ocean or coastwise steam vessels shall be issued to any person who has not had three years’ experience on steam or sail vessels, and must have served one year as second mate of steam ves- sels, such service to be immediately preceding the applica- tion. No original license shall be issued to a second mate of ocean or coastwise steam vessels who has not had three'years’ experience in the deck department of steam or sail yessels immediately preceding the application, one year of such service to be on steam vessels. “Now if our correspondents will do as they requested us to do, ‘peruse this rule carefully,’ we think they will find that when the American Association of Masters aud Pilots urged them to pass it, they sold them a gold brick as it were, Had the supervising inspectors read the three sentences of _ this cunningly devised measure from the bottom up they would have discovered that it enforces fully three years’ service on steam vessels by a sailing shipmaster who desires to command a steamer. “Tf the applicant for a license has never been in a steam vessel, as is the case with most sailing vessel masters, he cannot obtain a master's license until he has secured a chief mate’s license and rendered one year’s service under it, and to obtain this chief mate’s license he has to serve one year as second mate of a steamer, and in order to get a second mate’s license he has to render one year’s service before the mast in this class of vessels. After going through these grades as provided by this extraordinary rule, if he doesn’t fall overboard or die of old age in the meantime, he may be- come a full fledged licensed master, ‘(A Marine Journal representative has had an interview with Supervising Inspector-General Dumont and Supervising In- spector Starbuck in regard to this matter, and both admit that the foregoing construction of this objectionale rule is correct, and that the passage of it after being favorably re- ported from the committee of supervising inspectors to which it was referred, was a mistake that occurred through its not receiving the careful consideration it should have, through the multiplicity of business on the day it occurred. There is no reason to donbt that it will be promptly rescinded at the next meeting of the Board. In the meantime if any legal way of modifying it can be found, it will be done. This, however, does not affect the opinion of the Marine Journal, which was, and ‘still is, that an intelligent sailing shipmaster who can pass the necessary examination im- posed as to the ‘rules of the road’ and others governing both sail and steam vessels, is competent to command a steam vessel with as great a degree of safety as a steamship man who has never been in or commanded a sailing vessel, and is entitled to a license when applied for. “The navigation and handling of a steam vessel is very, easy in comparison to that of a sailing ship, and none of the many who have made the change direct from the command of sail to steam Have ever made other than a success of it, hence our belief that the rule is unjust to this especially able class of mariners, although experienced men differ from us. We never feel more at homeat sea in a steamship than when we know that the man in charge of her navigation has served an apprenticeship from the forecastle to the cabin in a sail- ing ship, and could reef, hand and steer, if necessary. “The English law on this important question of the abil- ity necessary to command a steamship, requires that the steam vessel master shall have previously commanded a sail- ing ship, but it does not require that he shall serve as a sub- ordinate officer on a steamer before commanding one. No one will venture to decry the ability of English steamship masters or those who make laws for their government which are very strict. This, with the foregoing arguments, proves that we were right in stating that the inspectors’ rule is ‘Unjust to Sailing Ship Masters.’ ”’ ——<$<$<$ $i > ————___—__—_—_——~ “THE SUEZ CANAL. Just forty years ago, in 1859, the first spadeful of sand was dug by M. De Lesseps at Port Said as the formal commence- ment of the Suez canal. In 1869 the canal was opened by the Khedive Ismail and the Empress of the French, who led the procession of ships belonging to all nations through this new waterway of the world which has revolutionized the great trade routes from west to east, and so magnified the political importance of Egypt that it is a possible battlefield of the nations. November 17, the great constructor of this Egyptian bosporus received his apotheosis in the inaugura- tion of his statue on the western jetty of Port Said, which will greet every ship that-passes from west to east or east to west. M. D. Lesseps fully deserves this intimate and permanent association with his work. It would never have been com- pleted without his indomitable perseverance. He often said that his principle in life was to have confidence in himself and his work, and his heart never failed him. The opposi- tion of England, the lukewarm, intermittent support of his government, and the distrust of the Porte would have seemed to any ordinary man obstacles that could never be surmounted. But ‘‘it’s dogged as does it.”’ Lesseps never lost heart over his ‘‘one-man work,” and it ended in a mag- nificent success. In 1869, forty ships passed through the canal with a tonnage of 10,500 tons. In 1896, 3,409 ships passed through with a tonnage of 12,009,000 tons. In 1872, no dividend was paid on the shares, and the shares of £20 were quoted at £7. To-day, a dividend is paid of £3 12s. per share, and the shares are posted at over £150. It is curious to look back on the early history of the en- terprise, and to realize how often objections, excellent in theory, totally disappear in practice. There was the politi- cal objection raised by Palmerston that English imperial in- terests would be injured and the integrity of the Ottoman empire endangered. Yet Turkey remains much the same, and such dismemberment as it-has suffered has been in no way caused by the Suez canal. England has suffered no in- jury; she is now the largest shareholder and by far the big- gest customer of the canal. The original causa causans of her presence lies in the extravagance of Ismail Pasha, who first ruined the country, and then brought upon himself the intervention of Europe by his attempts to wriggle out of his financial responsibilities. Then came the pseudo-national insurrection, and the defection of France, which left Eng- land to play the part of international policeman all alone. Finally, the fanaticism of the Soudan so increased the diffi- culty of the task of restoration of order and maintenance of good government that England is still in Egypt, and will never leave it. Passing from the political objections, the physical and commercial objections have been equally proved by experi- ence to be without weight. The first and most formidable in appearance was the difference of tide between the Red sea and the Mediterranean. The engineer, M. Lepere, sent by the first Napoleon to report on the possibility of a canal between the two seas, said that this difference of tide made the scheme absolutely impossible. So it would have done had it existed. But forty years later a series of levels estab- lished the fact of the identity of the mean sea levels at Suez and Port Said, and a waterway without even locks was pro- nounced possible. A danger of more real character at the Port Said end was next pointed out. The mouths of the Nile constantly bring “ May 3, 1900. to the sea a vast quantity of mud and sand, and as the coast currents set eastward the silt at the northern entrance of the canal was expected by many experts to block the passage. This would have been the case if engineering skill had re- mained at the point it was. But the mechanical devices for clearing out the bed of this canal, and for keeping it clear when made, improved by great strides every year. The supply by the Egyptian government of 20,000 fellahen every month was withdrawn, and machinery had to take its place. Dredges of continually increasing power were imported, and this year three are to arrivé which will clear away the silt outside Port Said at the rate of 600 tons an hour. The dis- tinguished engineers with whom I traveled here all assured me that this, the most serious danger, is now averted. The risk of collision and grounding was thought by many ex- perts to be very great. The statistics of the last few years show it to be hardly worth consideration. Sand storms were expected from time to time which would choke the canal in the parts which pass through the desert. But as long as the present administration continues there is no fear. Moreover, the banks are now mostly planted with trees and shrubs, and the sides of the canal are faced with stones to avoid the effects of the wash of the vessels as they go by. Since the purchase by England of the 176,602 shares in 1875 for four millions (now worth £26,500,000), and the in- troduction of English administrators on the direction—there were only three at first, but there are now ten—many im- provements have been made, while complete harmony has reigned in spite of the international character of the admin- istration. The sidings where the biggest ships can pass have been increased by nine, and the width of the canal has been made such as to allow ships to pass each other in most parts, and they have no longer to wait in the sidings. The traffic had so much increased that it was difficult for a ship to get through the canal under forty-eight hours. After many experiments the electric light was introduced, and all ships pass in the night as much as by day. The canal jour- ney has been accomplished in seventeen hours, and the average is now under twenty-four hours. One great improvement still remains to be done, and until it is effected the canal cannot be said to be perfect for its purpose. Sir Charles Hartley, one of the consulting engi- neers of the company, in a paper read before the British As- sociation at Dover, thus states the difficulty to be sur- mounted: “Tt seems highly desirable in the interests of commerce that a sufficient depth should be provided as soon as prac- ticable for vessels of a draft of twenty-seven feet ten inches, instead of limiting it to twenty-five feet seven inches, as at present; and, further, that eventually the canal and its sea approaches should be deepened to thirty-two feet nine inches (ten meters) * * * to permit vessels drawing up to twenty-nine feet six inches to pass safely from sea to sea with a minimum of half a meter of water under the keel.”’ The size of steamers has so much increased that when fully laden many draw from twenty-seven feet to thirty-one feet. At Liverpool, New York and Antwerp the depth is now over thirty feet at low water, and the Amsterdam and Baltic canals have both been deepened to thirty feet. ro oo HOW TO RID SHIPS OF RATS. Le Yacht of Paris draws attention to a cheap and effective plan for getting rid of the rats which are so oftena perfect plague on board ships. The plan is one invented by. M. Pierre Apery of Constantinople. He produces, by means of ordinary reactive agencies, carbonic acid gas to any desired quantity in the hold of a rodent-infested vessel. Owing to its specific gravity, the gas lies in the lowest parts of the hold, penetrating into every chink and crevice, and asphyx- iating the rats, the dead bodies of which can be removed after the hold has been aerated. To ascertain whether any of the gasremains in the hold a lighted candle is sufficient. Another way to dispose of rats without leaving their bodies to fester in their holes is to fill a barrel or barrels two-thirds full of water and cover the water with any garbage or other enticing stuff that will float and hide the water. ‘The bar- rels should be so placed that the rats can jump into them. They will follow one another by the dozen, and once in the barrel, they can never get out, having no foothold to enable them to jump. eer PO re Maritime Liens—Admiralty Jurisdiction—Marine Con- tracts,—It is settled that contracts to furnish labor or ma- terials for the repair of a vessel, whether made on the credit of the vessel, or the personal credit of the person contracting therefor, are maritime, and within admiralty jurisdiction. The Iris, 100 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 104.