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

“May 15, Ig02. THE NEED OF AN EFFICIENT FOG SIGNAL ON e SAILING VESSELS. BY B. B. BIBRER, LIEUTENANT U. S. N. The following remarks are submitted to mariners in the hope that the great dangers attendant upon fog—the seamen’s greatest enemy—may be minimized by the im- - perative introduction of an efficient fog signal upon sail- -ing vessels. It is earnestly desired that those interested make such comment as they may desire to the Hydro- graphic Office. - The existing meager and inadequate rules and interna- -tional laws on the subject make the demand by mariners for an efficient fog signal imperative. It is believed that ‘an efficient fog horn or submarine signal can be produced, or that, failing in this, sailing ships on the high seas should use in fog, mist, or falling snow an explosive fog signal. 'The expense of any change will at once be considered, but need a vessel of twenty gross tons be required to make the same signal as a vessel of 500 or 1,000 gross tons? Should a fog signal be selected because it is inexpensive or. because it is effective? Will a common lantern an- ‘swer for a lighthouse? Article 15 of the International Regulations for prevent- ing collisions at sea provides that a sailing vessel of twenty :gross tons and upward shall be provided “with an efficient fog horn to be sounded by mechanical means, and also -with an: efficient bell.” This article does not give the slightest indication as to what is to be regarded as an effi- ‘cient fog horn. Is the present fog horn in use on board sailing vesels efficient—that is, does it give a timely notice of the presence of a ship in a fog? It is believed that -the captains of vessels of various nationalities will say that the fog horns which pass the inspectors, and therefore conform to the above law, are not efficient, in that they do ‘not prevent collisions in a fog. This state of affairs should not. exist, and it lies with mariners, ship owners, underwriters, and the public in general to insist upon a change in the regulations respecting fog horns. In the case of a steamer meeting a sailing vessel end on, or nearly end on, no matter what the steamer’s speed may be, there is now no possible way, with the present fog horn, for the vessel under sail to make her presence known until all time for caution is past. An incident has been cited— and it is only an illustration of many similar cases—where -ae steamer and a sailing vessel collided in a fog. The steamer’s whistle. was heard on board the sailing vessel ‘for twenty minutes before the collision, although those on board the steamer heard nothing. In the case of a steam vessel going at “moderate speed” and navigating with cau- tion, the usual noises°on board ship and-those made by her moving through the water are considerable, and the effectiveness—efficiency— of a fog horn should be judged ‘by the conditions which exist now, and not by the condi- ‘tions existing fifty years ago. What was effective fifty ‘years ago is not necessarily effective now. Investigation and experiments have shown that the ordi- nary steamer moving at full speed Will stop, after suddenly ‘reversing her engines, in from four to five times her ‘Tength, and when moving at “moderate” speed this is re- duced but little. If the helm is put hard over the instant the engines are reversed, the vessel will have moved ahead about three times her length before stopping, and the ship's head will have changed about four points. These condi- tions exist in quiet weather and smooth sea. In a vessel of 500 feet length, the distance advanced will be 1,500 to -2,500 feet, or %4 to 2-5 of a mile, during the time from re- versing the engines until the vessel is stopped. Those who are familiar with thick fogs and the present “efficient” fog horn in use on sailing vessels will realize the useless- ness of stopping only after this distance has been covered, to say nothing of that covered by the sailing vessel, in the case of meeting end on. In many straits, channels, and other localities, owing to strong currents and other condi- tions of navigation, large steamers and vessels must move - at considerable speed, and the fog horn of a sailing vessel ‘must be effective or collision is unavoidable. ; Mariners should not insist on the infallibility of their ears, but keep in mind the fact that sound is not always ‘with the same intensity in all directions from its source. ‘Some curious phenomena may be related in regard to fog ‘signals; and experiments with the fog signals of light- ‘houses have shown that, though the fog signal was in full ‘operation, and that while there was no lack in the volume of the sound emitted by the signal, the sound was heard ‘at some distances arid was not heard at others, or was in- | ‘distinctly heard where it should have been heard loudly, and loudly heard where it should have been heard indis- tinctly; in fact, at some points near by, the signal could not be heard at all—all this within reasonable earshot. A siren on the Atlantic coast has been heard eighteen to twenty miles to windward in northeast gales, and a much less distance to leeward. Whatever the theory, whether there is a soundless zone, whether these phenomena are ‘due to different densities in the strata of air or fog, or whether there is some other reason, the fact remains and is cited for the information of the mariner. : Tt is also difficult to determine the true or exact direc- tion of the source of a sound which reaches the ear. A “number of cases are on record where officers on the bridge of a vessel have differed as much as from five to eight points in their estimation of the exact direction of a fog signal, and collisions have occurred in consequence of such errors. : Caution should be observed in a fog even with an effi- cient fog horn—May Hydrographic Office Chart. THE MARINE RECORD. FASTEST SHOAL WATER BOAT. — Tur Roserts Savery Water ‘Tune Borer Co., 39 and 41 Courtland St., New York, May 9, 1902. Tue Martine Recorp, Cleveland. A few days ago we noticed in the last “issue of your publication, an item from Detroit, in reference to the steamer T'ashmoo being the fastest vessel in shoal water on the Great Lakes. While this subject. is under consideration, we beg leave to submit the enclosed copy of a letter which we have this day received from Mr. John Craig, in reply to a letter of ours written a few days ago, and enclosing said clipping from THE Reccrp. : Our recollection was that the Iroquois not only beat the Tashmoo last summer, under very unfavorable cenditions, but that she went through the river ahead of her with her masthead decorated with brooms. We have a recollection of seeing an account of this in one of the papers published in the locality. We trust that the enclosed copy of the letter from Mr. Craig will convince you that the ‘Tashmoo is not the fast- est boat. on the lakes in shoal water, and that you will give the matter consideration. Tur Roserts Sarvry Water Tusr Borer Co. The letter referred to is as follows: Cratc SHie Butprne Co., Toledo, O., May, 7, 1902, Rosers Sarery Water Tuse Borrer Co., GENTLEMEN : : With regard to the clipping from the MaArtne Recorp, will say you are right, in regard to the speed of one of the boats, fitted. with Roberts water tube boilers, namely the Iroquois.. ‘This- steamer beat the Tashmoo all the way across Lake St. Clair, the second time the [roquois was ever away from the dock, and before we had time to work her down at all. As you will remember Mr. Arnold was in a great hurry to get her up to Mackinac, and did not give us time even to run her here at the dock, any more than to see that she would run. We started here for Mackinac, and, as luck would have it, the Tash- moo picked us up, at the entrance cof Lake St. Clair, when we only had two bothers in usé. We managed to stay ahead of her, however, until we had steam, on the other two boilers, and then we left her fully half a mile in the balance of the run across the lake. This certainly does not speak very much for her excessive fast speed, in shal- low water, as there is only 18 feet of water across the lake, and the distance is only 16 miles across it. . Yours very truly, Tsay Crate Sate Buriprne Co., J. F.Crate. ee iO Oe EASTERN FREIGHTS. ‘Messrs. Funch, Edye & Co. New York, report the condition of the Eastern freight market as follows: The only direction in which any activity in chartering has been manifested is for timber from the Gulf and deals from the British Provinces. ‘The rates in some instances show a slight advance, but in view ef the number of steam- ers chartered during the last few days, shippers do not feel inclined to make further commitments unless owners are disposed to allow some concession. Grain shippers are still unable: to operate for full cargo steamers, but as the price of cereals has fallen somewhat, it is quite possi- ble that some business in this commodity may develop shortly. Some few fixtures have been effected for-coal to Mediterranean ports, and further charters could probably be consummated on the basis of last transactions. _ There is no enquiry for cotton tonnage either from the Gulf or South Atlantic ports. The market for sail tonnage remains stagnant. Vessels apparently are not wanted, and in exceptional instances, where business has been accomplished, unremunerative -rates have prevailed. Grain, Liverpool or Glasgow 3 cents; London 3% cents; Bristol 434. cents. STATEMENT OF THE VISIBLE SUPPLY OF GRAIN. As compiled by George F. Stone, Secretary Chicago Board of ‘Trade Saturday, May 10, 1902. CITIES WHERE WHEAT.| CORN. Oats. RYE. BA LEY STORED. Bushels. | Bushéls. | Bushels. | Bushels. | Bushels Bufialo. Sc. ees 614,006 135,000 132,000] . 149.000 349,000 Chicago.............. 5.461.000] 3,819 000) 757,000] 608 000 11,000 TOAC EON sis ive sein se 112.006 15,000 te Bl WO uc it os) 07: OCs tals Sea en Staaten 9.962, 90¢ 43,000 7.000 QI o0¢ 105,c00 Fort William, Ont..| 2,523,00c}. 0 ..-...s]oee sees Hires sl haeaeny 11-5 33 Milwaukee.......... 332 000 9,000 71,000 24,006 97-000 Port Arthur, Ont.... MOSHOOO lini his aiepeneas til ups acess a) setae Reine nade egcascentts TPOIEA Oss vin css noone 3.0.0 38,000 226,c0o 237,000 OVO0O| or eta. TOrantO . 0. eles ‘ 60:000|2. ice. o H3j000| it 4,000 On Cansisisicy cisiiien 332,000 69,00¢ SSF WOO Loa 20,060 On Lamesin sais s> aes 1,280,000 699,000 334,000 T52,000| sin sitinines Grand Total.... | 35 302,000/ 5,€67,000] 2,917,000) 1,346,000 813,c0) Corresponding Date, TOOT cvicaciedissinv eaves 45,716, 00| 17.338.00¢ | 11 449,000 963.00¢ 719,000 {ncrease for. week..|....... 00. ).+0 05. AEG Gon haa ned et aie HRP eRTCE ee ‘Decrease - ‘‘ is 3,026,000! 576,000 13,000 265,000 180,coo While the stock of grain at lake ports only is here given, the total shows the figure for the entire country except the Pacific Slope. SHIPPING AND MARINE JUDICIAL DECISIONS “tered for a minimum term of three months, but were re- _shipowner against a charterer to recover charter hire gives ‘a cargo of-coal worth about $10,000, took fire while lying ‘tugs continued to throw water into her for some thirty ‘damage-on barge and cargo, of from $20,000 to $25,000. Held, that they were entitled to an award for salvage ser- (COLLABORATED ESPECIALLY FOR THE MARINE -RECORD). Negligence.—There can be no recovery from a charterer for, injuries to the vessel, without proof of negligence. H: ‘Beard Dredging Co. vs. Hughes et al, 113 Fed. Rep. (U. $,.) 680. : Injury to Chartered Vessel—Ljiability—A charterer is liable for an injury to the chartered vessel through the negligence of a company which he hired to tow the same. W H. Beard Dredging Co. vs, Hughes et al., 113 Fed. Rep. — (U. S.) 680. Oe ’ Admiralty—Evidence in Suit for Collision—Admissions of Master.—-Statements made by the master of a vessel, after a collison, as to the manner of its occurrence, are receivable as admissions against the owners in an action — against them for the collision. ‘The Severn, 113 Fed. Rep. (U. §.) 578. Shipping—Damages for Breach of Charter—Sale of Vessel Before Expiration of Term.—Where a dredge and three scows, tobe used in connection therewith, were char- turned and the dredge was sold by the owner before the expiration of the term, the charterer is not chargeable with the hire of either vessel as damages for breach of charter after the date of such. sale. W. _H. Beard Dredging Co. vs, Hughes et al. 113 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 680. Pier Rights--Sale—Consideration—An application for the lease of pier from the New York City dock department did not vest any property right in the applicants which could furnish consideration for their sale of the pier, or an interest therein, made just prior to a sale of the lease at auction to the highest bidder, who was entitled to the lease, whether he had filed application therefor or not. Coverly et al. vs. Terminal Warehouse Co., 75 N. Y. Supp. 145. Salvage—Compensation—Rescue of Stranded Ship— Salvage service performed by a wrecking tug and barge equipped expressly for the service, and having a crew of thirty men, by which a steamship stranded in a dangerous position on the coast was promptly and skillfully rescued without injury to herself or cargo, held to entitle the salvors to an award of 5 per cent. on the amount salved, the value of ship and cargo being $153,000 and pending freight about $4,0co. The James Turpie, 113 Fed. Rep. (U.°‘S.) 700. ; Suit on. Charter—Pleadings and Issues.—A libel by a the admiralty court jurisdiction over the entire contract, and it will inquire into all its breaches, and award all the damages suffered thereby, although such breaches were not all specifically alleged in the libel, but some occurred after it was filed. A libel to recover charter hire for a month in advance, where the charterer re-delivered the vessel within the month, sufficiently raises the issue as to when such re-delivery was made. Gow et al. vs. Wil- liam W. Brauer S. S. Co., 113 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 672. Extinguishing Fire in Barge—Amount of Award—A wooden barge, valued at from $40,000 to $50,000, laden with in harbor, near a pier. ‘There was no fire boat in the har- bor, and the barge could not use her own fire apparatus, owing to the location of the fire. In response to her sig- nal, four tugs, which were all that were within reach, each fully equipped with fire apparatus, came to her assistance, and rendered prompt and efficient service. After three or four hours work, the barge was scuttled on orders from the master of one of the tugs, and lay aground, with a free board of five or six feet amidships at high tide. ‘The hours before the fire was extinguished, and then two of them pumped her out, one of them working for over three days in all. Through their efforts there was a saving of vices of $4,000. The Independent, 113 Fed. Rep. (U. 702. Action for Death of Ship Captain—Contributory Negli- gence—Ship Canals.—On a clear but dark night the steam tug of which plaintiff's intestate was captain entered a 300- foot wide ship canal from the south end, running at proper speed and at proper position over towards the east pier. | About ‘the same time defendant’s steamer and tow, con- nected by a 1,000-foot hawser, entered the canal from the north end; the tow shifting across to the east pier, so that steamer, tow, and hawser swept the whole channel. As the tug approached, the steamer signaled her to pass to port, which she did; and the hawser swept off her upper works, killing intestate. It appeared that intestate signaled his engineer to stop, and that the tug could have been stopped in three or four lengths, but the evidence as to whether he gave any signal to back was very doubtful. Held, that in the absence of any evidence as to’ when the danger. became apparent to intestate, or as to whether a signal to back would have averted the accident, the ques- tion as to whether intestate was guilty of contributory negligence should have been submitted to the jury. Hack- ett vs. Wilson Transit Co., 89 N. W. Rep. (Mich.) 360.