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

I royal yacht. NOVEMBER I, 1900. NAVAL PROGRESSION. “Notes on Naval Progression,’’ for 1900, just published if under the direction of Capt. C. D. Sigsbee, chief Intellig- ence Officer of the Navy, embrace the usual comprehensive range of subjects concerning the navies of the world. Of the several topics treated nearly all are technical. Lieut. C. C. Marsh writes of ships and torpedo boats, Lieut. Com. R. T. Mulligan of gunnery, ordnance and armor; Lieut. L. Ride Steigner of engineering and electricity, and Lieut. W. L. Howard presents some tables of comparison of the princi- pal naval powers. _ The principal article is by Lieut. Howard. It is entitled “Increase in Naval Strength as shown by Naval Budgets,”’ and deals minutely with the preparations made by the sev- eral naval powers to augment their fleets. In his introduc- tion Lieut. Howard says: ‘England, as usual, leads with the largest sum for the support and increase of her navy. But large as is this total, it is generally felt that the admir- alty program is inadequate, and the press of that country is actively urging a further increase.” The British program proposes to lay down this year the following vessels: Two battleships, 6 first-class armored cruisers, I second-class cruiser, 2 sloops, 2 gunboats, and 2 torpedo boats. With these the number of vessels under con- struction in 1900 are 17 battleships, 20 armored cruisers, 1 first- class protected cruiser, 2 second-class protected cruisers, 1 third-class cruiser,8 sloops, 4 torpedo boats, 21 destroyers, and There has never been so many vessels under construction as at the present time. In 1899 England added 19 vessels to her fleet, aggregating 122,322 tons, and in 1988, 30 ships, with a total tonnage of 140,988. The budget for this year provides for an increase of 4,240 in the personnel, _ bringing the total strength up to 114,880 officers and men. > In addition to the French shipbuilding program of 1896, which covered a period extending to 1907 and provided for the construction of 220 vessels, the French minister of ma- rine now proposes the construction of a number of vessels of various kinds necessary to make the fleet a homogeneous force. The program proposes laying down the following vessels, beginning this year: Six battleships, 5 armored cruisers, 28 destroyers, 112 torpedo boats and 26 submarine torpedo boats. This will give the French fleet, after the execution of the program, 28 battleships, 24 armored crui- sers, 52 destroyers, 263 torpedo boats, and 38 submarine boats. The total cost of the old and additional programs will be 712,208,000 francs. Considerable space is devoted to the increase in the Ger- man navy on account of Germany’s decision to become a great naval power. In addition to the program of increase provided for in 1898 it is now proposed to make a further in- crease. There is considerable opposition to the bill to carry into effect the new proposals, but Lieut. Howard points out that even if the proposed program should be closely adhered _ to Germany’s fleet would appear in the following years thus: Ig00—Seventeen battleships, to large cruisers, 29 small cruisers, 12 divisions of torpedo boats. _ 1998—Twenty-nine battleships, 20 large cruisers, 51 small . Cruisers, 16 divisions of torpedo boats. *\1916—Thirty-eight battleships, 20 large cruisers, 45 small cruisers, 16 divisions of torpedo boats. Italy’s naval budget for 1900-1901 amounts to 122,174,671 lire. An annual extraordinary expense of 10,000,000 lire has been authorized for shipbuilding for the period ending “in 1903. Italy has on the stocks, or in a more or less ad- vanced state of construction, the following ships: Four first- Class battleships, 3 armored cruisers, 3 small cruisers, 10 torpedo boat destroyers and 3 first-class torpedo boats. To these must be added 2 first-class battleships of Admiral Bet- tolo’s naval program. All the 117 warships provided by the Japanese naval pro- gram of 1895 have been completed or are in process of _ construction, and Lieut. Howard says itis probable that a in formulating a program of new construction. “new program will shortly be decided. The budget for 1900 amounts to 46,946,193 yen, and there is a special fund for the maintenance of vessels authorized by the diet of 98-99. . Russia has followed the example of the European powers In 1898 ~ €sum of 93,009,000 roubles was set apart for the completion in six years, ready for sea, of 1o armored cruisers, 10 second class cruisers and 20 destroyers. This program was in addition to the annual program outlined by the naval es- _timates. Later the number of vessels to be built was changed to 8 battleships, 8 large cruisers and 20 destroyers. In con- cluding his review of Russian naval progress, Lieut. Howard says: THE MARINE RECORD. “Notwithstanding the fact that the progress made with existing program has not been as rapid as was expected, and that her naval budget has steadily increased from $20,- 000,000 in 1897 to $45,000,000 in 1900. It is currently re- ported that the Russian government has in preparation and will shortly announce a new and extensive program for the increase of her fleet.” By a royal decree of May 28, 1900, Spain has provided for getting rid of the useless warships and with the proceeds of their sale two ships of about 2,000 tons each, to be used for training officers and men are to be constructed. The cred- its allowed under the budget for this year are to be employed “toward completing and increasing the screws of the Pil- ago, Carlos V., Numancia, Victoria and Nautilus.” A gen- eral scheme of instruction for officers and men is to be car- ried out. The Australian naval estimates-for rg01 provides for the completion of vessels under construction, but not for any new ships. Denmark’s naval budget is to be used partly to pay the first credit for the construction of a new battleship of the type of the Herluf-Trolle, recently launched. Holland’s program for this year proposes 4 large battle- ships, 2 smaller battleships for. interior waters, 3 monitors, 14 gunboats, 21 seagoing torpedo boats and 12 smaller torpedo boats. This program is to be completed in 1909. Sweden is to build 3 first class battleships, and to mod- ernize 3 coast defense battleships. rr re ST. LOUIS STEEL BARGE Co. The St. Louis Steel Barge Co., organized some time ago, has completed one of its barges anda steamer, and has launched them and a second barge, which is yet to be fin- ished, The company will start the vessels on a trial trip down the Mississippi river to New Orleans the latter part of this month with a cargo of grain and other freight for ex- port. The company was organized with a nominal capitali- zation of $125,000, but the three vessels just completed cost them $120,000, Work was begun on them last April at the section boat yards in Carondelet. The first barge was launched in July and the other barge and the steamer a few days ago. The steamer is named the McDougall, after Capt. Alex. McDougall, a member of the company, and the inventor of whaleback construction. The vessels have been built according to Capt. McDougall’s ideas, and the whole thing is in a manner an experiment, inasmuch asthe entire system of motive power and its application, the construction and all else, is a new idea of Capt. McDougall’s never tried before. The barges will be quietly loaded when completed and taken down theriver, Mr. Potter and Capt. McDougall will probably be the only members of the company to go on the initial trip, as they do not wish to make any ‘‘hurrah”’ about the new enterprise until it has been proven successful. No provision has been made for passenger traffic, the line being intended solely for freighting purposes. Thecarrying capacity of the barges is about 3,000 tons each, and of the steamer about 600 tons. They are 265 feet long, 4o feet beam and 14 feet deep, drawing only 16 inches of water, though each weighs over 350tons. The barges are con- structed of one-fourth to three-eighths inch steel plates, and the hold is divided into compartments, on the order of a fireproof building, so that if water gets into one compart-' ment it can do no damage beyond that compartment. Steel eye-beams are used in the construction, and the weight of the vessel, to an unintiated person would seem to be so great as to preclude any possibility of its floating on the water, and yet the barge draws only 16inches of water. The men interested in his new enterprise are among the foremost citi- zens of St. Louis, including Ex-Governor Francis, John Scullin, James Campbell, Isaac H. Lionberger, Rolla Wells and men of like high commercial standing. The move- ments of the company have been kept quiet as much as pos- sible. If the initial trip isa success there will be a demon- stration, perhaps, on the return of the boats to St. Louis.— The Age of Steel, St. Louis. oo or oor “Tr will be good fortune indeed,”’ the Boston Globe notes, ‘if in the fourteen armored ships soon to be built for our navy such notable work is done as has been accomplished in the Wisconsin. The hope and expectation is that every one of the five battleships included in the number shall prove better than any foreign war vessel afloat. As for the six cruisers, they are planned to be floating arsenals in truth, possessing armaments in eyery respect up to date. Allsigns ive promise that our new navy will more and more be the just pride of the American people.”’ 9 SHIPPING AND MARINE JUDICIAL DECISIONS. (COLLABORATED SPECIALLY FOR THE MARINE RECORD.) Exemplary Damages,—Exemplary damages are not recoy- erable in a suit in rem against a vessel for a maritime tort. The William H. Bailey, 103 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 799. Presumption of Fault.—The fact that one of two vessels sailing on crossing courses was struck by the other and sunk raises no presumption that the survivor was the one in fault for the collision. The Margaret B. Roper, 103 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 886. _ Collision— Suit for Damages — Isvidence.— Book entries introduced to show the earning of a vessel prior to collision are not inadmissible because not authenticated as original entries, as would be required if they were introduced to - prove an account. The William H. Bailey, 103 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 799. Collision—Suit for Damages—Testimony of Seamen—The testimony of seamen ona ship sunk in collision, as to the manner of such collison, is not to be discredited because of their personal interest in the suit on account of their claims for loss of effects, such fact being no more likely to affect their testimony than the bias most seamen have in favor of Le ile ship. The Margaret B. Roper, 103 Fed. Rep. (U. Libelant not Entitled to Lien.—A libelant who made re- pairs on such vessel under an agreement with the port cap- tain, who had charge of the work, with the approval of an officer of the company, on a statement by the port captain that the vessel was owned by the company, and was ‘“‘good for the bill,”’ but who made no inquiries of the company, and no agreement with it for alien, was not entitled toa an baa The George Farwell et al., 103 Fed. Rep. (U. .) 882. Carriers—Loss by Fire—Ljiability.— Under a contract of shipment providing that no carrier is bound to carry the property by a particular train. or vessel, or otherwise than with a reasonable dispatch as its general business will per- mit, or shall be liable for loss thereof by fire, the carrier is not liable—the fire destroying the vessel and cargo not arising from its fault—though the goods would not have been destroyed if it had carried them on the night of their arrival; the capacity of the vessel not being sufficient for all the cargo. In re Bridgeport Steamboat Co., 103 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 797. Sailing vessels Crossing—Evidence Considered.--Evidence relating to a collision at sea in the night between two schooners considered, and held not to sustain the contention of the libelant, whose vessel was sunk, that the two vessels met on parallel courses, and that the collision was caused by a change of course on the part of the libeled vessel, but to support the claim of the latter that she was sailing, close- hauled, on the starboard tack on a course crossing that of libelant, and that she held’ her course, which, as the privi- leged vessel under navigation rule 14, she was required to do, and was not, therefore, in fault for the collision. The Margaret B. Roper, 103 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 886. Constitutional Law—Seamen—Desertion.— Congress not having legislated upon the subject of the offense of aiding articled seamen or apprentices to desert or leave a foreign vessel while in the waters of this state, the legislature of the state had the right and power to enact section 655 of the Penal Code, making it a misdemeanor for any person to'aid or induce an articled seaman or apprentice to desert from or leave his vessel while in the waters of this state. The act in no way attempts to regulate or interfere with commerce, but is an aid thereto. Where the subject is local, and not national, in its nature, and does not require a uniform sys- tem of regulation, in the absence of legislation ‘on it by Congress, it may be regulated by the state. Handel vs. Chaplin, 103 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 979. Maritime Liens—Repairs and Supplies—Representation of Ownership by Charterer—A steamship company having its place of business in New York City, through its officers pro- cured repairs to be made and supplies furnished to a vessel in that port, representing that it was the owner of such ves- sel, although the vessel was in fact owned in Cleveland, and the company was in possession under a charter which re- quired it to make all repairs and furnish all supplies at its own expense, and to keep the vessel free from liens. Held, that persons making repairs or furnishing supplies on such representations were not bound to make further inquiries as to ownership, but were justified on relying on such represen- tation, and, where there was an express agreement for a lien, the vessel was bound thereby; but that, in the absence of such agreement, or where no injury or statement was made as to ownership, there would be no lien, although the re- pairs or supplies were charged to the vessel, the presump- tion being that credit was given to the supposed owner. The George Farwell et al., 103 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 882. or or or ‘‘YouR boat is very light draft, captain.” ‘‘Very.’? ‘TI understand you think nothing of steaming across a meadow where there’s been a heavy fall of dew.’’ ‘‘Wall, stranger, I don’t know ’bout that; mebbe we do—though I reckon we sometimes have to send a man ahead with a watering- pot.—Ex.