may

Register Society, whose business it has been to make and enforce rules for obtaining strength, as well as buoyancy, in sufficient reserve for safety at sea. It be stated as a maxim in shipbuilding, that a vessel must be strong enough to carry a full load, and any one not so built is a failure as a transport, whatever her material may be. There can be no such thing as a first-class vessel that cannot carry a full load, -one limited only by the requirements of safety in flotation. A mechanic knows of no excuse for building vessels of deficient strength of any materials proper to be used. Nor is it a practice to build such vessels in the United States. Besides being dishonest constructions, they would not pay to use. In short, the object of discriminating against wooden ships in their loading cannot be concealed from American shipbuilders. It is, without doubt, to handicap their skill and discourage their trade. In a preceding chapter we have shown the comparative service and survival of British iron and American wooden ships, and that the latter do the more work in their greater period of existence. This could not be the case if they were weaker.

Proof from Experience. If confirmation of this view of the distinction set up in England is needed, we have only to refer to the tables of ship performance in the California trade with Europe, given in preceding chapters. There it is shown that the British rules for loading iron ships gave them about six inches less freeboard and more draft of water than American wood ships were allowed. In consequence of this advantage, the British iron fleet carried 72.82 pounds more to the ton of vessel capacity, or .227 per cent. more cargo than did American wood. But note the increased peril per ton which resulted. This was 37.75 per cent. above the peril rate of the American wooden fleet. In other words, in consequence, mainly, of their deeper loading, if it was worth 2 per cent. (the rate then current) to insure cargoes by British iron ships, then cargoes by American wooden ships, equitably written, would have been only 1.6 per cent. (but the current rates were 2.5 to 2.75, with freights much lower in consequence). This testimony is experimental, and not theoretical or political, and should settle the question of parity of freeboards for wood and iron ships, at least as they have been, and will be, built in the United States.

Valid Reasons for a Freeboard Law. We have remarked upon the need of enacting rules for loading, to protect our vessels from foreign interference, but there are other reasons that may be offered. It will be in order, first, however, to inform the reader that the British Board of Trade have examined the freeboard bill proposed and expressed their satisfaction with it. If enacted, the British authorities will respect it. So much has been gained already.

The increased safety of life and property at sea, that will doubtless attend the enactment of the law, are objects worthy of attainment. We have no idea that American shipping is inferior to any in the world on the score of safety, but progress in this direction will be beneficial to our shipping interest, and honorable to the national character. Great Britain for many years has been endeavoring to improve her merchant fleets in seaworthiness, the appointment of several royal commissions testifying to its necessity and importance. The fact that marine insurance is higher in England than on the Continent is of itself an indication that she should lead in Europe in reducing the dangers of navigation. If she succeeds in this, other nations cannot, without disadvantage, decline to follow her example. And the British law is working successfully.

A return has been made of all ships ordered by the Board of Trade or its officers to be provisionally detained as unsafe, in pursuance of the act of 1876, from July 1, 1890, to June 30, 1891, giving the names of the owners of ships that have been dismantled, broken up, or converted into hulks. It appears that the whole number of vessels detained during the year was 44; of these 21 were found unsafe on account of alleged defects in hull, equipment, or machinery; the remaining 23 were cases of overloading or improper loading. These were either lightened or reloaded, and then released. Those with defects of age or condition were either broken up, converted into hulks or lighters, or are still detained. Since the passage of the act of 1876, of which the law of 1890 is an amendment, the total number of vessels reported as defective has been 722, or 48 annually. The number held for illegal loading has been 585, or 39 annually.

When we estimate the number of British vessels loading in the ports of foreign countries, where British law is not in force,

and consider how many unsafe vessels, but for the law, would annually proceed to sea under the British flag, it will be seen what need there was for saving legislation. It cannot be doubted that its effect is, and will be, to raise the reputation of the British marine.

This effect will be felt by American shipping. Its place for seaworthiness is in the van. We cannot afford to lose this place. The application of load-line law will increase the present repute of our marine for safety, and, consequently, its chances for employment. It will tend to reduce marine insurance. It will improve the personnel of our seamen. It will help to equalize conditions of competition for freights, by giving owners of character fair play with those, if any there be, who abuse the strength of their vessels and imperil or sacrifice the lives of their crews. Finally, the course of Great Britain, possessing as she does more than half the tonnage of the world, is bound ultimately to prevail, and the safe loading of vessels to be regulated in the future by every nation that keeps the We have nothing to gain, but much to lose, by neglecting this opportunity, as we have others, to advance our shipping interest.

sea.

CHAPTER XXII.

THE COST AND ECONOMY OF SHIPPING.

Advantage Governs Trade. As in trade two elements regulate all transactions, so in mechanism two principles settle the utility of all machines. These are money and time on the one hand, and power and speed on the other. It is not the cheapness, but the fitness and advantage of vessels that demand the shipowner's thought. A ship is a tool of trade. As the best quality of a tool is adaptation, and the most valuable, efficiency, and the most important, profitableness, the cost cuts but a catchpenny figure. It will pay to throw away a poor tool and get a better one.

Shipping history is full of caution to all who read it, and learn the fact that a new type of vessel has been demanded in every decade of our commercial life. Thirty-five years ago, when American shipowners seemed to insist on keeping both trade and travel in sailing vessels, it was our fortune to share in publishing the following observations:1—

The Principles of Transportation. "Hitherto it has not been regarded as inexpedient to perform two kinds of service with the same ship. But a higher degree of trade development is in progress, and a greater subdivision of employment becomes necessary, both on land and sea. It is of less consequence to detain merchandise than persons, in the railway train or the ship. The business man will wait a while for goods, but the traveling public wish to start immediately and arrive speedily. This disposition has induced improvement in transportation; first, the harnessing of the iron horse, next of express trains for light freight and passengers. Although this change was opposed, we have now four classes of carriers on the railroads, viz.: The freight, accommodation, express, and 1 The Nautical Magazine and Naval Journal, Griffiths & Bates, Editors and Publishers, New York, August, 1857.