CHAPTER XXI.

THE LOAD-LINE QUESTION.

FOR years past the British government has sought to regulate the loading of vessels, and to that end freeboard1 rules or tables have been applied to British ships. At first the object was to save the lives of seamen, by the prevention of overloading, and the law affected British ships only. Later it was found that foreign vessels, competing with British, sometimes loaded deeper, and consequently could carry cheaper. Then was it seen that equity required that all competitors should load by, at least, equivalent rules, and these, if framed and applied by British authority, could be made protective of British interest. Accordingly, a new act, passed in 1890, is now in operation as to shipping of all flags arriving at, or departing from, a port of the United Kingdom.

Our own government has not yet considered the load-line question, except in reports of the Commissioner of Navigation, and the preparation of a freeboard bill by the author, which was introduced in the House, February, 1891, and in the Senate in December following. Our rival's course has made it necessary for Congress to take this question up and settle it, by the passage of this measure, if our vessels are to receive fair play in British ports, or be protected finally in carrying a full cargo anywhere. By the terms of the British act, if our ships are inspected and marked by officials for their load drafts of water, according to proper rules enacted by Congress, they will be accepted by the British authorities as capable of carrying the loads designated; but if not inspected and so marked,

1 The line to which a vessel is loaded is called the load-line. Freeboard is a name given to the emerged, out-of-water or "dry side," between the load-line and the sea-washed deck above it. The freeboard represents the reserve buoyancy of the vessel, and is always a considerable percentage of the entire "displacement," or vessel-body.

it follows that they may, and no doubt will be, imposed on by shippers, underwriters, and governments of foreign countries by restrictions as to loading.

Heretofore, in loading our ships in the foreign trade, no restrictions have been imposed by foreign governments, but only by underwriters. Hereafter, since Great Britain has led the way, we may expect other nations, as well as she, to enact loading rules; and through sharp officials make our shipowners pay dearly for governmental neglect. The extent to which this new discrimination may be carried can only be fairly judged from past experience of foreign bias regarding American ships.

Action of the Maritime Conference. The International Maritime Conference of 1889 was expected to adopt and recommend uniform rules for freeboard, but the committee having that subject in charge deferred action further than to report against taking it up then. Their report amounted to this: that the British Lloyds had a superior set of rules for shipbuilding and marine inspection, which turned out vessels of greater strength and better quality than other nations built or generally owned, hence uniform rules for loading, unless based on rules as good as Lloyd's for building and inspection, would do injustice to British shipping. It is clear, at a glance, that British sentiment must have ruled the committee. Their plea could not relate to buoyancy, but only to strength; and it has yet to be shown that Lloyd's rules insure the building of stronger ships than the rules of the Veritas, the Record, and other registers. The fact was, the British dominated the conference. Owning most of the world's shipping, on mature reflection, they were not anxious to recognize equality between British and foreign vessels. They preferred having loading rules of their own, which they could make protective to homebuilt tonnage. If discrimination resulted in their application to foreign vessels, that could only be the fault of such backward nations as did not themselves protect their shipping by loading rules and regulations of their own.

International Correspondence. Soon after the passage of the new act, the British government brought it to the notice of our own, and invited correspondence as to its adoption in the United States. A reply, prepared by the Commissioner

of Navigation, advised that a bill for American rules would be submitted to Congress for consideration and passage. This course was necessary in the interest of our marine, because the British tables of freeboard (rules were not enacted) are not based on science, or experience, but, seemingly, on theories of the superior seaworthiness of iron over wooden vessels, of steamers over sailers, of sharp ships over full ones, and of narrow vessels over wide ones. The English interest in metal shipbuilding and steam navigation must have had undue influence in shaping the tables. If certain kinds and sizes of vessels are pinched of cargo, others are permitted to load too deeply. Besides, the British tables do not provide for loading lumber vessels, which again are craft peculiar to American trade. Then, the British law puts the whole matter of loading rules or tables into the hands of the government Board of Trade, and this body may, and doubtless will, make changes from time to time. Our government has no body corresponding to the Board of Trade. Congress cannot enact a lot of tables, and he would be a poor American who would take his current law, or amendments thereof, from a department of the British government. We must, therefore, frame, enact, and apply our own rules and tables, improving upon the British where we may.

Comparison of Freeboards.1 It may be stated here that the rules of the bill proposed for congressional action have been submitted for examination to the New York Board of Underwriters, and received their unqualified approval. They may, therefore, be referred to as American, in the discussion of points of difference with the British, now to be noted.

Table I. Steam Vessels. The American rules provide a little more freeboard up to a size of vessel of 26 feet depth of hull, at which point the British tables give a little more for winter. At the depth of 30 feet, both summer and winter freeboards are a little greater by the British tables, and at 34 feet a considerable difference appears.

Table II. - Sailing Vessels. The American freeboards are

1 In the Appendix will be found a copy of the freeboard bill, prepared by the author, as introduced in the Senate. Also tabular comparisons of British and American freeboards as adopted and proposed, with an explanation of the load-line problem, and the principles of freeboard rules.

the same as for steamers of equal depth. As steamers are longer than sailers, in proportion to depth, and there must be additional freeboard for overlength, it results that sailers carry more freeboard than steamers, by both sets of tables. The British provide for sailers a little more "dry side" up to a depth of hull of 26 feet, where a change appears, and the American rules require more freeboard for iron vessels.

Discriminations. For wood and composite1 sailing vessels, the British tables stop at a size having 27 feet depth of hull, and do not provide for summer freeboards, which are less than winter. Iron sailing vessels have freeboards assigned up to, and including, the size of 31 feet depth. They are given less freeboard than composite ships, and they, in turn, less than wooden vessels. But a stranger discrimination is made. While iron steamers are given less freeboard than iron sailers, below a size of 28 feet depth, at that limit a change is made, and the steamer, with a "coefficient of fineness" of .76, is required to have half an inch more dry side than a sailer of the same sharpness; and, for a depth of 31 feet, 3 inches more freeboard. At a depth of 20 feet, with a coefficient of .74, the difference of freeboard is 3.5 inches greater for the sailing ship. Such changes and differences as these between sailers and steamers are neither reasonable nor consistent, and cannot accord with science. They seem to be mere arbitrary distinctions to favor steam at the expense of sail, for such sizes of ships (not the largest) as must naturally do the greater part of ocean commerce, just as the distinction of less freeboard for iron than for wooden vessels is intended, probably, to induce a shipowning preference for iron ships, and, therefore, of British-built tonnage.

A just distinction in favor of steamers is made in the standard for proportionate dimensions, where they are allowed twelve, but sailers only ten, depths for length, beyond which the freeboard is increased for overlength. By the American rules a sail ship of 20 feet depth would have 2.1 inches more freeboard than a steamer, but by the British tables 3.5 inches more if iron-built, 4 inches if composite, and 4.5 inches if wooden. By the American rules a sailer of 26 feet depth

1 Composite vessels are framed of iron or steel, but planked with wood, calked, and coppered.

would have 2.4 inches more freeboard than a steamer, but by the British tables she would have 1 inch, if iron-built, 2 inches if composite, and 3 inches, if wooden. By the American rules a sailer of 31 feet depth would have 2.62 inches more freeboard than a steamer, but by the British tables she would have 3 inches less instead of more, if iron-built; but about the same if wooden.

Table III.-For Spar-Deck Steamers. For the depth of 23 feet the British tables give a little more freeboard than the American rules, both for winter and summer. At 27, and up

to 35 feet depth, the American rules require a little more freeboard for winter, and considerable more for summer. At 37 feet depth the British tables give a little more for winter, but less in proportion for summer. Thus, it is seen, the British tables favor the deeper loading of medium-size vessels.

The American rules are based on hydrostatics, therefore they cannot favor any depth or class of vessel, but must be fair to great and small.

Table IV. — For Awning-Deck Steamers. It will be seen that the British tables give less freeboard for the smaller, and more proportionably for the larger vessels, than the American rules. Comparing the freeboards of awning with those of double-deck steamers, it appears that the British tables restrict unduly the loading of the larger awning-deckers. We may test this by supposing the awning-deck removed and the rules for single or double deck to be applied. In that case the freeboards for extreme sizes of vessels, expressed in inches and tenths, would compare, for the winter season, as follows:

Thus we see, in awning-deck steamers, the American rules require slightly more freeboard for the smaller vessels, but considerably less than the British for the larger.

Assuming the American rules give sufficient freeboard to the smaller vessels, we observe that building up the sides and