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

SEPTEMBER 19, I9OI. THE MARINE RECORD. SHIPBUILDING, BY GEORGE W. DICKIE. Mr. George W. Dickie recently read a paper before the Society of American Naval Architects, from which we take .the following: : Granting, therefore, says Mr. Dickie, ‘‘that there is noth- ing lacking-in'skill on the part of:our designers, how are we in regard to the second factor ii the problem of competition, that .of the cost-of labor? This is the one ‘factor that pre- sents the greatest difficulty in dealing with the problem of relative cost-a& between the shipyards of Great Britain and those of America. We work under different conditions in regatd to a large portion of the work. The whole ‘steel work ofa ship may be done under the piece-work system in Britain, the price per unit being fixed for certain shipbuild- ing districts between the shipbuilders and the unions repre- senting the men. This method has its advantages, as it ‘simplifies the estimating—a certain known portion of the work having a certain fixed value. While a considerable portion of the work with us is done on some piece -work sys- tem, every yard appears to have its own way of fixing prices with the men. In the British yards, as with us, while prac- tically all the steel work is done under some kind of piece System, yet on inquiry it appears that it is with them very much as it is with us; the number of men on wages on the ‘very work supposed to be done by piece is greater than that of the piecé-workers, and skill in management is directed to the reduction of the number of men on wages as compared to the number on piece work. - “I find that on an average the ste2] work of construction costs in the British yards from £3 17s. to £4 (in our money $18.67 to $19.40) per ton of material worked. This I think we can about equal in labor cost here. But when it comes to fitting out, including carpenter and joiner work, painting, and general finish, where piece-work does not cut any figure, the cost; I think, is directly as the wages paid, and where we are paying’50 per cent. more wages, the cost of labor that is reckoned in wages will be 50 per cent. more here than it is in the British yard. And if half the labor cost for any given ship built in a British yard is paid in wages—and this is very nearly correct—and that half costs 50 per cent. less than the corresponding part in our yards, our. total labor cost will be '25 per cent. greater than theirs. ‘This is very nearly correct, as tested by comparisons, ‘In regard to the cost of material, I am afraid that in this part of my subject it is beyond my ability to satisfactorily compare our conditions with those ofjthe British or Euro- pean shipbuilder. The most important material: affect" ing the cost of shipbuilding is steel; and the tre néndous fluctuations that at times take place in the price of that material in this country, is: the most serious question we have to contend with in trying to predict anything in regard to the future of shipbuilding in this coun- try. The tariff on steel plates and shapes makes it possible for us to find the British shipbuilder working into his ships American steel from Pittsburg at a less cost to him thanthe English material, and. at less cost than is charged the American shipbuilder for the same ‘material in Pittsburg. I sawina yard on the east coast of Scotland steel being: worked into a vessel, that was delivered in the yard from Pittsburg at less than £7, 2s. 6d. ($34.55) ‘per long ton. If the American steel manufacturers can meet the British steel manufacturer on equal terms in the British shipyards, somehow it seems as if it might be possible for the American shipbuilder to get his steel material as cheap as the British shipbuilder gets his. This is all that I pos- sibly can advance on this part of my subject. As the duty on steel of this character is not a protective measure and cannot possibly produce revenue, it should not be main- tained to render wild fluctuations in price possible. I may be wrong, however, as to the cause of the immense varia- tions in the price of steel here, but think I am right in say- ing that such conditions relative, to the most important ma- terial he uses area great obstacle tothe progress of the shipbuilder in this country. “Engine and other forgings cost more with us than they do in Britain and Europe. In ordinary forgings of steel this difference is from 30 to 50 per cent., and in high grade forg- ings, such as are required by our navy department specifica- tions, there is no comparison. The usual extra charge for nickel steel forgings in Britain is £4 ($19.40) per.ton extra for each I per cent. of nickel in the steel. I did not find nickel steel forgings being used at/all in merchant work. : “On the whole, I’think the British builder has an advan- tage over the American builder in the cost of material. This applies even to the wood used. As near as I can judge at _subscribers. ‘reputation and means, who must deposit a pecuniary guaran- the present time there is 10 per cent. in the cost of material in favor of the British shipbuilder as compared with the cost of material-in American yards. ee “From the foregoing, if the statements I have made are correct, we are not yet ina position to compete with the shipbuilders of Britain or EKurope—Europe meaning Ger- many only, I think, in this connection—the difference be- tween us being not less than 315 per cent. on the finished ship.”’ It is possible that Mr. Dickie’s estimates are correct as ap- .. plied to the cost of labor and ‘materials in the north in com- parison with European conditions, but is it not possible to meet those competitive conditions in the south? A canal giving the Birmingham iron and coal producing district a direct and short water route to the gulf would enable us to lay down the material, including lumber, at Mobile cheaper than at any. other seaport in the world. In regard to labor, the negro labor of the south can compete with Europe most successfully, and the negro could be utilized for accomplish- ing at least two-thirds of the work. It-is unfortunate that Mr. Dickey did not fully investigate conditions existing in the south before he boldly announced to the world the inability of the United States to successfully compete with ‘Europe in the shipbuilding industry. ee: hc WHAT IS LLOYD’S?: In reading the daily and weekly papers one often runs against the term “according to Lloyd’s,’’ but it is probable that very few know the extent of Lloyd’s functions in the insurance world. Hence it is that an article which recently appeared in Ainslee’s Magazine is practically apropos as helping to answer the question, What is Lloyd’s? Thus, the writer of the article, S. A. Woods, says. most members of Lloyd’s carry on business as brokers or underwriters on their own responsibility. As a corporation Lloyd’s assumes no financial liability for the failure of any of its members or But it admits to membership, only men of tee in order to become an underwriter and underwriting member, an annual subscriber or an associate. An under- writing member must deposit with the committee of Lloyd’s ‘£5,000 or £6,000, on which he receives interest, and which may be returned to him three years after he ceases to be an underwriting member. Hepays an entrance fee of £4,000 and an annual subscription of 20 guineas. An annual sub- scriber pays no entrance fee, but an annual subscription of 7 guineas. An associate member pays 5 guineas, There were in 1771 only seventy-five subscribers to Lloyd’s. There are now nearly 1,000. The subscribers in the olden time, as now, did not confine themselves to marine insurance. They were willing to take a risk on almost anything. There is still preserved at Lloyd’s a policy on the life of Napoleon Bonaparte for one month at a premium of £3 33, fer cent. Bank deposits are insured in Lloyd’s; also race horses and the lives of threatened mouarchs. An odd case was the covering of a risk on a glass bed packed in twenty cases for for a certain Sultan. Lloyd’s insured the Prince of Wales’s jubilee stamps, guaranteeing that the issue would be successful. The voice of a prima donna has been insured. A tradesman in a London street, who has an impression that a monument may fall on his shop, has taken out a policy at the nominal premium of.2s.,6d. per cent. Gate money for cricket and football matches, animals of all sorts, ashore and afloat, are subjects for insurance. Policies against twins is a favorite form of insurance.: A well. known-underwriter is said to be always ready to lay a thousand to one against twins. Lloyd’s issues insurance against burglary. Elephants are insured regularly., The life of the great Jumbo, who came to New York on a Monarch Line steamship, was insured in Lloyd’s for the voyage to New York. His life was not in- sured when the life was knocked out of him by a locomo- tive on an American railroad, whose tracks he was crossing. A celebrated singer recently took out an insurance in Lloyd’s on the life of Queer Victoria. She paid a big premium on account of the age of the Queen. The reason the singer did this was because her contract to sing would have been abro- gated by the Quee:n’s death, which would have plunged England into mourning and prevented the singer’s appear- ance in opera.—Brastreet’s. OO oe own THE Cramps, of Philadelphia, are building two steamers for the International Navigation Co. These vessels, which will be known asthe Kroonland and the Finland, are of 18,500 tons displacement each, 560 feet long, and will have accommodations for 570 first-class passengets, SHIPPING. AND MARINE JUDICIAL DECISIONS. (COLLABORATED SPECIALLY FOR. THE MARINE RECORD. Shipping—Charter Party—Construction.—The construc- tion of a charter party of a vessel for a voyage for a. certain time, with the privilege of an extension thereof, is for the — court, and not for the jury. Flagler vs. Hearst, 70 N. Y. (Supp.) 956. a Shipping—Liability for Negligence of Pilot.—A shipowner is not liable for injuries inflicted exclusively by negligence of a pilot accepted by the vessel under New York laws 1882, chap. 410, by which the acceptance of such pilot is made compulsory. Homer Ramsdell Transportation Co. vs. La - Compagnie Generale Transatlantique. 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 831. Evidence—Admissibility.—Where a charter party of a vessel for a period of six weeks specifies that it is fora voyage to the West Indies, and gives the charterer the. privilege of taking an extension, its uncertainty as to the - time of such extension authorizes the admission of parol evidence of the negotiations leading to the execution of the contract in a suit for a conversion in failing to return the ~ vessel by acertain time. Flagler vs. Hearst, 70 N Y., Supp. - 956. a Pilots—Negligent Service—Ljiability of Pilots’ Associa- tion.—The Pilots’ Association of the Bay and River Dela- ware, which is an unincorporated association of pilots, whose objects are, limited to the management of pilot boats — and the furtherance of the interests of its members in vari- ous ways, but which has no power to make contracts for pilotage, its members acting individually in that matter, does not stand in the relation of principal as to such con- ° tracts, and is not liable for the negligence or fault of one of its members in the performance cf a contract made by him ~ for such service. The City of Dundee et al., 108 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 679. Collision—Anchorage Outside of Designated Grounds— Negligence.—The regulations of the port wardens of Phila-. delphia, providing that ‘vessels shall be ailowed to anchor’’. in designated parts of the Delaware river, are permissive and directory, and, while the defiant or needless disregard of them by a vessel would be evidence of negligence, there may be circumstances under which a ship is justified in © anchoring outside of the designated grounds, without being chargeable with negligence; as where, in the judgment of — an experienced pilot, they are so fully occupied that a place outside is safer, and other ships ate also anchored outside, and in the vicinity of the place selected. The City of Dun- « ’ dee et al., 108 Fed. Rep, (U..S.) 679. : Shipping—Proceeding to Limit Liability—When Main- — tainable—Single Claim.—A proceeding in admiralty for limitation of liability under Rev. St. 42-4284, 4285, should’ ’ not be entertained where there is but one known claim, and the nature of the accident or loss makes improbable any other, and where the petition neither avers a belief in the existence of any other claim, nor shows any grounds for apprehending any other. In such case the statutory limita- - ' tion of liability is effectually available as a, defense under section 4283, by answer in the action on the single claim; and such procedure not only avoids the expense of the special proceeding, but preserves the plaintiffs right of jury ” trial, which should not be interfered with any further than necessary to effectuate the purpose of congress. The Eureka No. 32, 108:Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 672. or Extension—Conversion—Sufficieney of Evidence.—A ves- sel was chartered to the defendant for a voyage to the West Indies for a period of six weeks, with the privilege of ex- tension. ‘There was evidence that the vessel was chartered for a particular voyage, and a bond was executed requiring _ the return of the vessel at the expiration of the charter party. One extension for one month was granted, and be- fore the expiration the owner demanded the return of the vessel at such time, and the defendant received notice there- of when the vessel was at a point that it could have been re- turned by that time; but he failed to return it, but used it as.a dispatch boat for some months thercafter.. Held suffi- cient to show a conversion of the vessel at such date, since the privilege of extension only entitled the charterer to an extension for the voyage for which the vessel was originally chartered. Flagler vs. Hearst, 70 N. Y. Supp. 956. Judgment—Res Judicata—Admiralty Suits in Rem and In Personam.—A decree dismissing a libel in rem against a vessel to recover for repairs does not constitute an adjudica- tion of the nonliability of the owners who, under admiralty rule 12, could not be joined as defendants in such suit, and did not intervene therein, unless it clearly appears from the record that such issue was not only raised, but decided; since its determination was not necessarily involved. Where the opinion of the court shows that the decree was based on a finding that the contract was not made with the master as alleged, but with the owners. under circumstances which did not entitle libelants to a lien, an expression of opinion therein that libelants agreed to wait for, payment from the earnings of the vessel, which was a question not material to the decision, does not render the decree conclu- sive upon that question when pleaded in bar of a subsequent suit against the owners, or offered in evidence as an estoppel. Morris et al vs. Bartlett et al., 108 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 675.