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

better carrier than one built entirely of wood,’” ‘The following extracts are from a letter of Wm. W. Bates, Esq., now of Portland, Ore- gon, the scientific writer on marine archi- tecture, and practical builder of vessels in Chicago and other lake ports, and who has had some experience in iron shipbuilding in New York: “IT think it was in 1871 that you first dis- cussed with me the practical value of sub- stituting iron for wood inthe frames above the floorheads in wooden vessels. * * * I may also add that I have several times ex- amined your plans as they were developed, until the patents were obtained, and must say that you deserve much credit for inge- nuity and perseverance. Any competent shipbuilder will find no diffleulty in build- ing vessels of ample strength, increaged durability, greater burden and diminished cost by your plans. * * * * T[ seeno reasons of a mechanical nature why your system should not be generally adopted. On the contrary, there are the best of reasons why it should be immediately introduced.’’ Captain John B. Merrill, of the well- known firm of R. P. Fitzgerald & Co., ot Milwaukee, formerly a shipbuilder of note, wrote me a letter which I have mislaid, fully endorsing all my claims, provided my “details are all right.’? These he had not examined. : The-following is from a letter by the late Captain Charles P. Morey, for many years a classification inspector, and more recently at the head of the tna Classification Bu- reau: “I have examined with great interest your improved system of composite ship construction. I consider it a great inven- tion. In my opinon, a ship built upon your plans would have greater strength than the usual composite or wooden ship; would be more serviceable, have greater capacity for cargo and less liability to decay. I believe a ship built after your plans would be su- perior to one built entirely of iron—-also more suitable and safer for the lakes .’” From a letter written by the veteran classification inspector, Captain W. H. Rounds, noted for his fearless and honest reports, I quote as follows: ‘1 have made a thorough examination of your model and plans for the constructiou of a lake or sea- going vessel,and think your ideas sound and plans good, and cheerfully recommend them to any one wanting to build a first-class ves- sel. She would be much more durable and lasting, and can be built, I think, for less money than a wooden vessel—and as an in- surance risk I should consider her choice.’’ The following extract is froma letter by any former business partner, Captain C. J. Magill, vessel agent and commission mer- chant in Chicago, who has had an experience of more than forty-five years as ship-master, owner and agent: “* * * * IT now think a stronger, more durable, more bur~ densome, and (in the long run) cheaper ves- sel can be built on your plans than in any other way now in use. So well am I con- vinced of its superiority, that I would not hesitate to build a vessel, either steam or sail, on your system. I think it you could succeed in having one vessel built, so as to practically test your system and give con- fidence in its merits, it would soon be brought into general use.” [On account of press of matter we were obliged to divide Captain Hall’s interesting letter at this point. . Next week we will con- clude the series of letters which have proved of so much value and interest to our readers. —Kd.) D ENGLISH SHIP- sa cca ae an iG Van WERT, O., March 6, 1883. Editor Marine Record. 1 see you have taken hold of the shipping interests of Great Britain and have given several articles on that subject in the Rec- orp lately. I wish to know how American shipbuilding compares with the shipbuild- ing of Great Britain. J.W.N. During the year 1880 there were con- structed in the United States for ocean traffic 412 sailing vessels, having a tonnage of 63,610, and 166 steam vessels, having a tonnage ot 40,617. In addition to this, for the service of the lakes and rivers, were constructed 48 sailing vessels, with a ton- nage pf 5,447 and 182 steamers with a ton- nage of 38,237. In the same period Great Britain constructed 353 sailing vessels, with a tonnage of 57,535, and 474 steamers, with a tonnage of 346,361. ‘The total number of American vessels plying the ocean was, at that time, 17,632, with a tonnage of 2,803,923 while Great Britain boasted of 26,185 ves- sels, and a tonnage of 6,574,513. Including the shipping upon the iuland lakes and rivers, the total shipping of the United States was 21,547 vessels, having a tonnage of 3,527,816. ‘Che reason for this enormous difference between the two ‘countries is due partly to the greater cost of labor and ma- terial in the United States; partly to many more ways of employing capital profitably in the United States than there are in other countries; partly to the subsidies paid by the British Government to encourage the establishment and maintenance of British ocean lines for transportytion; partly to the vastness of the British.Atpire and the ex- emption of British vessels and British goods carried in their vessels from heavy port dues and duties in trading to British ports; and partly from the American law forbidding the granting of the American flag to vessels built in other countries, even when owned by American citizens, and forbidding the restoration of our flag to American-built vessels after they have once gone under other colors, whatever the cause. American built vessels compare in all other respects, favorably with the same classee of British vessels, and in many particulars American builders have done much to improve all classes of sea-going craft. ‘STEEL WAR VESSELS; The efforts of the Secretary of the Navy to obtain appropriations for the building of several vessels of iron and steel have been successful, the Naval. Appropriation bill having been finally passed by the House a few days since. ‘The clause in the bill for the construction ot new vessels appropriatas for the steel cruiser of not less than 4300 tons displacement now specially authorized by law, two steel cruisers of not more than 3000 tons nor less than 2500 tons displace-' ment each, and one despatch boat $1,300,000 the Secretary of the Navy to invite proposals from all American shipbuilders whose ship- yards are fully equipped for building and re- pairing iron.and steel ships, and construet- ors of engines, machinery and boilers, Iron Shipbuilding has become so firmly established as an art, and the superiority of metallic vessels so fully demonstrated, that no question is likely to arise respecting the character of materials to be used. A graver question is presented in the suspicion, very generally entertained, of political jobbing to be associated in some manner with the pro- posed contracts. Mr. Robeson’s monitor reminiscence and the delightful concord ex- ist‘ng between the ex-Secretary and Mr. Chandler carry with them a suspicion al- most necessarily fatal to new projects. More- ever while it is not known to the general public, nor to the average Congressman either, for that matter it is nevertheless a fact well known to our steel makers, that there is at present not a single steel works in the country engaged in making structural steel and rolling the required shapes for this kind of work as an article of commerce. The Edgemoor people are thus far the only ones who have at all engaged in rolling steel shapes, and this only to the very limited extentof the few sections wanted in the Brooklin Bridge. From what we know of their experience, we have no doubt that they are well pleased with the result obtained— viz., the completion of their contract beyond that, we hardly think they would desire an order to duplicate it. Owing to the fact that our Bassemer industry has been almost exclusively devoted to rail manufacture, | and our open-hearth furnaces tothe a king of commercial steels, we are as little pre- pared for this kind of work now as Creuzot and Terre Noire were before the Govern- ment experiments at L’Orient Now, this tact is thoroughly well under- stood by the naval ring, and the question ts only to find out who is the favorite contract- or they mean to subsidize, or if they pro- pose to transfer their operations across the Atlantic, and by getting their steel from abroad mean to withdraw in a measure from unwelcome public scrutiny. ————— The Marine Recorp is gaining in circu- tion every week. ON A FRIESLAND BOAT, It wae pleasant to take notes of the vari- ous little pietures made by the tangle ot brown-sailed, broad-beamed craft. We had even time to observe the lightsome and free ways of the Dutch female sailor—not roman- ically disguised as a boy, but sporting a dis- tinct (tarry more or less) costume of her own; not so very different either from the real boy—or rather, his dress, in one import- ant particular, is rather a lame imitation of hers. He wears a pair of baggy breeches so very voluminous and petticoaty that one has to turn to other peculiarities of dress in or- der to be on the safe se of judgment. ‘There is one way of telling the boy from the girl, however, as far as you can see them, as he does a deal of vigorous looking on and smoking, while she does some very pretty pulling and. hauling and poling the boat about, in harbor especially. We saw one athletic young maiden shy a coil of rope for a youth on another boat to:catch. He did not get his hands out of his capacious pock- ets quick enough, so the rope caught him playfully about the ears; whereupon ensued a rattling interchange of compliments (prob- ably) between these two at first, and then the female sailor belonging to the lubber’s boat “sailed in’’—to use a strictly nautical term; and then it soon developed into a partie carree, as the old man at the rudder of the rope-slinging maiden’s boat opened fire. He was a master hand at profanity, that aged mariner, It was just getting hot and deeply interesting to us on-lookers, when our boat drew out, with ‘a well-directed broadside of invective from our crew, be- stowed impartially and liberally on all con- cerned for not getting out of the way. - MARINE LAW. GRAIN “IN BULK.”’ Supreme Court, Maine.—By Judge Virgin. I.S. Dunn vs. Union Insurance Company ; S. H. Sweetsir, vs. same; S. L. Chase el al. ve. same; Cumberland s. s., Virgin, J.—As- sumpsit on three time policies of insurance on the respective interests of the plaintiffs in a bark which took on a cargo of grain at Boston, and after sailing there-from, on October 26 1877, for Glasgow, was never heard from, but was lost within the time of the policies. ‘The principul question, as it is the most important, involved in the de- cision of these cases,is the vonstruction of the clause, ‘“‘ Prohibited from loading grain in bulk.” . This clause, being on the face of the policies and an integral part of the con- tract as. completed constitute an express warranty that the bark should not load grain inthe mode prohibited within the time specified, (Williams vs. N. E. M. F. Ins. Co., 21 Me. 219. 224; Cobb va. Lime, R. F. & M. Ins. Co., 58 Me. 326; Sawyer vs. Ca- asters M. Ins. Co.,6 Gray 221; Odiome vs. N. E. M. M. Ins. Co., 101 Mags., 551). and being such a warranty, its terms, when as- certained, are to be strictly (many author- ities say literally) complied with, whether material or immaterial to the -risk, and whether such strictness operates in favor of the insurers or of the insured. (3Kent’s Com. 289; Kemble vs. Rinelandor, 3 Johns Cas, 134; Forbush vs. West Mass. Ins. Co., 4 Gray- 340; Sayles vs. N. W. Ins. Co., 2 Curt, 610; Whiton vs. Al. & Mar. Ins. Co., 109 Mass. 24, 29; 1 Am. Ins. (2d ed.) §§ 213, 214.) An express warranty in whatever terms it speaks, is held to bein the nature of a condition precedent; and when the assured has rested his claim against the underwrit- ers upon such a condition iuserted in the contract, the law imposes on him the bur- den of proving a strict compliance there with, if he would recover; otherwise he would not present a case conforming to the terms under which the risk was assumed. (2 Am. Ins.§ 468; Richardson ve. Maine. Ins. Co., 46 Me. 394, 398; McLoon vs. Com, M- Ins. Co., 100 Mass., 472, Campbell va, N E. M. L. Ins., 98 Mass., 381, 390; Whiton vs. Al. & Mar. Ins. Co., supra.) In the in- terpretation of warranties as.of al! other contracts, especially of a mertantile charac- ter, whilethe words are to be generally understood in the common and ordinary sense acquired by general and popular use, still usage can be invoked to define the terms and thus explain, though not vary them, and to show that as applied to the subject, the language used had acquired a particular meaning different from that us- ually attributed to it. (Cobb vs, L. BR. F. & M. Ins. Co., surpal Am. Ins, Co. § 215.) And while in the cxse at bar, it is not quest- foned that the words “loaded in bulk”? in the absence of any known usage showing a dift ferent meaning, would ordinarily be under- stood as “having the cargo loose in the hold or not inclosed in boxes, bales or casks,” (Webster’s Dict.,) the plaintiffs, with the burden upon them of showing that this ne- gative warranty has been strictly, not sub- stantially, complied with, has offered testi- mony for the purpose of showing that their vessel was not “loaded in bulk,” as that phrase is understood among merchants and saiing mastersand boards of underwriters; and we think they have made out a prima facie case at least. This phrase has doubt- »ese been in marine policies for many vears, and while there is not much testimony in this case showing that vessels formerly load- ed with grain in bulk, without using any bulkheads whatever to guard against the great danger incident to such loading, all seemns to coneur, that bulkheads, such as were used in the plaintiff’s bark, are now and have been in constant use for more than forty years, at least. Such was the experience of Captain Marwick from 1840 to 1863, while he was carrying grain from New York to Harve and to Liverpool; and being a resident of Portland, and a daily witness In the winter season of the loading of ocean steamers and sailing vessels from the grain elevator there, such must have been his observation since he left the sea, Can grain loaded into a veesel divided off into bins by longitudinal and transversal bulkheads, be said to be “loaded in bulk” ? In the absence of any acquired definition to the contrary, we think it must be so con- sidered, strictly-speaking, to be loaded other- wise than in bulk, grain must be placed in some receptacle other than the hold of a vessel, such a8 a box, cask, or bag. But we are satistied from all the testimony in the case, including especially the certificate of Surveyor Davis, of the “Boston Board of Underwriters,” that “loaded in bulk” has acquired a meaning in the mercantile world different from its literal signification, and as it was formerly understood, which permits grain to be loaded as was that in the plain. tiffs barr. Judgement for the several plaintiffs. SUIT AGAINST A TUG. It will be remembered that in November last the tug M. J. Cummins, Capt. Don- ovan, left Fair Haven having in tow the canal boat Carrie and Cora loaded with po- tatoes, apples and onions. ‘Ihe boat sprang a leak and was lost. A suit has been com- menced against the tug for the value of the cargo. $5,100. Itis alleged Capt. Donovan refused to return to Fair Haven at the re- quest of the canal boat men when it was found that it was’ unsafe to proceed. ‘he suit will be tried at Utica March 16. A boat-detaching apparatus invented by Edward J. Hill and Josiah L. Clark, West- minister, England, consists of the combinae tion, with a hook formed with horn-like pro- jections or stops and fixed iman inverted position to a ship’s boat, of link gttached to the boat lowering tackle, pea the hook and bearing against the projections or stops. A comuiunication of the Secretary of the Navy was onthe 4 inst., laid before the Senate regarding the recommendations for the construction,of a steel cruiser of about 4,000 tons displacement, to cost, it is estimat- ed, $1,576,654; three steel cruisers of about 2,500 tons displacement, to coateach $1,031,- 225; one iron dispatch boat, or fast clipper of about 1,500 tons displacement, to cost $160,000, and one cruising torpedo boat, to cost $38,000. The Naval Department and Advisory Board agreed that the largest ves- sel should not be built, so large and expen- sive a vessel not being now required; and the Secretary adds that if finished it would not be adapted to the present condition of the navy. The Secretary says: “In begin- ning the new modern steel navy by com- mencing only two vessels it does not seem wise to start with one to cost $1,570,000 and another at 1,600,000. Construction should begin neither with the largest or smallest but with medium sized ships.” ——— ee By advertising in the Marine Recorp, you lay the foundation for a good business.