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

6 7 MARINE Another View of the Whalebacks. Editor MARINE REVIEW.--The whaleback discussion grows interest- ing and the late contribution in your columns, from their patent at- torney, is not the least amusing of the series, and well illustrates whale- back methods. The demolition of men of straw, set up by themselves for that express purpose, is a favorite trick of some fighters, such as politicians and lawyers, raising false issues, under whose cover they dodge the real ones, while the plaintive whine 'about the terrible amount of abuse which the inventor of these boats had to suffer (presumably in meek silence,) is well calculated to bring a smile to the face of any one at all conversant with the flood of misrepresentation as to the boats and their capabilities, which has from the beginning poured forth from every one at all con- nected with them, and which has, to a large extent, given them such vogue as they now enjoy. The two assertions so unfairly credited to "Fairplay," and which your legal correspondent takes a column anda half to demolish to his own satisfaction, incidentally injecting some of the usual whaleback "rot" about "magnificent performance," "the vessel of the future," etc., are, first, that Capt. McDougall was not the inventor, and second, that they are not pat- entable. Neither of these points has the slightest bearing on the question of the commercial and lasting success of the boats, which is presumably the object of the whole discussion. The second required no answer, for no one questions the fact that pat- ents have been issued, and plenty of them, to your Washington corres- pondent's manifest past advantage and hoped-for future profit, in litiga- tion, perhaps, if not in more patents. It is one thing to get a patent, how- ever, and quite another to have it made good in court, as perhaps the whaleback people may learn before they get through with the "active steps" now being taken "to prevent infringement.'"' The first point may well be considered a matter of opinion, though no one can deny that Capt. Mc- Dougall is entitled to the greatest credit, not, however, for combining cer- tain features that had all been used before--and years before--in var- ious vessels, but for his dogged perseverance, his rugged combativeness, his magnificent enthusiasm and faith and power of impressing them on others, and last, but by no means least, his quickness in abandoning many of his preposterous claims as soon as practical trial had shown their ab- surdity, and in getting his craft nearer and nearer, as more and more were built, to the ordinary vessel. Your legal correspondent makes a most ridiculous assertion, that "it is a matter of record in the patent office that as long ago as 1880 the mod- ern whaleback barge, steamer, and passenger boat were clearly and fully developed in his mind and were represented in models." In the first pat- ent, issued in 1881, the vessel described and illustrated, is almost perfectly eylindrical, had no turrets, needed no rudder, and was about as much like the present boats as they are like Cleopatra's barge. If the modern boat was then fully developed in the inventor's mind why, in 1888 did he build the 1o1 to his first crude ideas? Why, as soon as she was tried, did he go over his notions, and build the next boat under water, except the spoon bow, exactly like an ordinary vessel? Why has he kept continually flat- tening the deck? Why, in the patent issued in December, 1888, does he describe the midship section as "differing from the shape of the tow-boats described and illustrated in my said letters patent, and assuming more nearly arectangular form with rounded corners?" Why, in the same pat- ent, does he abondon the spoon bow, saying: " The bow, substantially semi-circular for the upper half of the hull, in the lower half is hollowed out, in this last respect being of a well-known form. The advantage of this form of bow is to prevent burying in the waves and to allow the bow to rise and ride easily over such waves. In like manner the stern," etc. This "square with rounded corners" for the midship section applies to every cargo boat under water ever built, and above water is only the turtle-back deck, a very old form and still much used. Why, again, after thus stating that the ordinary bow is the better, does he still cling to the spoon, to most people the worst thing aboutthe present boat? Or is it because, with the curious ends and rounded deck abandoned, the distinctive features of the whaleback would be gone, and the dear public, so long mis- led, would begin to understand that these features had nothing to do with the success of the boats? The plain fact is that the commercial success of the whalebacks has been not to what our legal friend calls "those features which are characteristic of them and which are entirely novel and original," but to a curious conjunction of circumstances, with which few inventors or adapters are lucky enough to meet. Coming into service first about the time that the boom for steel hulls commenced on the lakes, and all the other yards were busy constructing steamers, they started as tow barges, in competi- tion with wooden vessels; their material of construction alone gave them a great advantage, while the fact that some of the shrewdest managers of steel steamers are now going back to the old practice of towing, shows that in that respect the whalebacks were on the right path. For both these reasons, with the booming freights of that time, the first boats made money, and large capital was secured, while the financial backers, through their other interests, furnished business for the increasing fleet; this, by REVIEW. ---- keeping the building yard full all the time, reduced the cost of construc. tion very largely, while it is well known that the town of West Superior not only paid a large bonus to get the yard located there, but for many years paid an additional bonus in cash every week of Io per cent. of the pay roll; and finally, the whole outfit, yards, boats, land deals and all were in one pool, which, in the booming times up to last season, made barrels of money and paid big dividends. Few men acquainted with vessel prop- erty on the lakes or elsewhere, would think of ascribing all this success to the whaleback features of the scheme; any ordinary steel fleet, under like circumstances, would have done as well. That last season, so disastrous to vessel interests on the lakes in general, saw many whalebacks laid up, and this winter has closed the yard at West Superior, as well as the widely heralded plant on the Pacific coast, which has not launched even its first boat yet, is tolerably good evidence that they are not such vastly superior money-makers after all. Again, if the whaleback is sucha "magnificent success," "the vessel of the future" and all that, why is it that only four in all have been built for outside parties, and two of these, really, for one of their own stockholders? Ifso much unexampled technical knowledge and scientific skill has been used in their construction, why is it that two of these four, though built each 20 feet longer than the contract called for, still failed by some 300 tons each to carry the load guaranteed, according to common report, though the matter was settled out of court; and the other two not only fell short some hundreds of tons from the contract loads. but were so un- suitable in other respects, that it is amatter of public notoriety that a suit for heavy damages against the builder was instituted? This is the "Pigs vs. the Soo" case, referred to by the 'Man Off the Dock" in your issue of Nov. 15 last. To answer the "Man On the Dock's" assertion that the father of the -whaleback has never gone out of his way to attack the "regular pattern" would uselessly extend a communication perhaps already too long, but it could easily be done. For six years the newspaper and technical press has been burdened with false statements as to the capabilities of the boats, their cheapness in construction and operation, their speed and cargo capacity, and detailed comparisons between them and boats of the "regu- lar pattern" in similar trades have been given out, in which an advantage- ous showing for the whaleback has been made, and only made, by a de- parture from the facts in the case and the actual records. For proof of this, see the comparison between the Charles W. Wetmore and the Bay- City-built Mackinaw in the American Shipbuilder of August, 1891, and that between the Colgate Hoyt and the Cleveland-built Matoa in the Ma- rine Record of July, 1892. Further, in a paper on lake steamers read last August before the engineers of the world, at the congress in Chicago, by a self-styled "naval architect," the whaleback is referred to as follows: "To-day these peculiar looking vessels are generally preferred by Ameri- can underwriters, while business with their designers and builders is eagerly sought." Ye shades of Lloyds! TOPSAIL,. Proposed Changes in Canada's Marine Laws. Special Correspondence to the MARINE REVIEW. KINGSTON, March 29.--Three measures affecting the marine business are now before the parliaments. Hon. M. Bawell wants deputy harbor masters, lighthouse keepers and such like officers, whose salaries are less than $200 per year, appointed by the minister of the department without orders in council. 'These officers would not come under the superanua- tion act. It is also proposed to amend the seamen's act so that a master of a vessel cannot only recover for the wages of his seamen but also for disbursements properly incurred on account of his vessel. Another clause has reference to relief granted to ship-wrecked Canadians. A Canadian is one who has been domiciled in Canada for twelve months and persons leaving in ships registered in Canada are deemed domiciled in Canada while so serving. The government is reorganizing the staff on the Welland canal and the axe has descended on the heads of thirty-nine persons, including William Klis, superintendent; J. B. Smyth, deputy superintendent, Mer- ritton ; Andrew Hamilton, deputy superintendent, Port Robinson; William Carter, harbor master, Port Colborne; Jaines Dell, section foreman, Thorold; J. KE. Lawrence, clerk of canal office, and seventeen lock tenders. The government chiefs delared that when the new Welland canal was built it was only contemplated to be a substitute for the old one and it was not intended to maintain both. It is the employes mostly connected with the old canal who have been removed. re Some of the New York newspapers recently complimented Mr. Lloyd Griscom, youngest son of the president of the American Line, on his gen- erous reception among the British nobility as private secretary to Am bassador Bayard. This is doing well for Mr. Griscom the youngest, but he has two brothers who are doing a great deal more for their country at home. C A. Griscom, Jr., practically manages the affairs of the great company in New York, and Rodney Griscom is a valuable assistant in the superintending engineer's office in Philadelphia.