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

SE ne SA OY GE Segre ees storm theory, but concludes his letter by saying: "Were the waters of the lakes never affected by storms it would seem to me that the new plan would then be the correct thing." Master No. 1 then is in favor of the plan, because it has all along been understood that the weather conditions must be taken into account in making these courses. If the master used his own judgment in regard to weather in following these courses, it would amount to practically the same thing as the statement "that if the waters of the lakes were never affected by storm." Master No. 2 objects to it on account of the courses crossing one another too much. He does not intimate, however, that the courses could not be made or that they would lead to stranding in case they were adopted. Master No. 3 bases his argument on the weather conditions, and also on ac- count of not sufficient sea room, which is very true. Master No. 4 favors the plan. He puts up an argument that no. man can get away from. He states nothing but facts and tells a long story in a few words. This man knows what he is talking about. . There are many mas- ters who know that what he says is so but you could not get them to admit it. No. 5 objects to the plan on account of weather conditions. He makes this statement: "Lake pilots seem to be al- ways 'coast pilots' and do a great part of their piloting by land marks and should correct their position by every land mark they see." This statement hardly agrees with what Eryas says in regard to lake men being navigators as good as can be produced in the world. A real navigator does not have to de- pend wholly on land marks to make his courses. I am glad that it was Master No. 5 that made the statement rather than the writer hereof. It must be true because it comes from a man who is "practically conversant 'with the sub- ject." No. 6 makes a very good argument. He says, "If these courses could be followed with a reasonable degree of safety at the turning points, I entertain no doubt it would be an improvement." He endorses the outside course on Lake Huron. He must then be of the opinion that there would not be the difficulty that Eryas claims in making this course. If a two-course system is practical on Lake Huron why not on 'Lake Superior? If this be a fact, and No. 6 does not intimate anything to the contrary, his opinion differs very much from the argument employed by Eryas. No. 7 objects to it on account of the weather conditions, and that he would be unable to-see the lights and hear "THE. Marine REVIEW the fog signals, virtually admitting that without these aids he could not make the courses. } 5 No. 8 uses good reasoning' in his ar- gument in saying that the courses can- not be separated far enough to elimin- ate the chances of collision on account of so many of the courses being so nearly parallel with one another. No. 9 is in favor of the new plan if all boats would adhere to it. Judging from No. 9's letter he isn't a "land mark navigator" at any rate. No. 10 favors the plan and uses a tell- ing argument. He not only knows what he is talking about, but he fully under- stands the promoter's ideas in recom- mending the plan. He says: "After duly considering the same I am of the opinion that the theory advanced has much in its favor, as a general ile of navigation in foggy -and_ ordinary weather, and in my estimation should be adopted and complied with so far as possible.. It meets with my hearty approval." Ne, 11 is not in favor of it on ac- count of being out too far, not being able to get the lights and fog signals. No. 12 objects on the grounds that the courses cross one another at the -important turning points. No. 13 disfavors it on the ground that the courses cross each other. No. 14 favors the idea, and says that he has, on several occasions, in thick weather, steered an-outside course in order to avoid meeting so many boats. - Surely the foregoing communica- tions do not illustrate the "inconsis- tency of the plan." It-is one thing to make a statement, but another thing to back # up." Now, in relation to Eryas' remarks on leeway or side drifts: Is it not just as much a master's duty to be able to allow for leeway or side drift, send of the sea, head wind, following wind and sea, etc., as it is to be able to cor- rect his course for variation and devia- tion? Is it not a fact that when all these corrections have been properly made that the ship is making good her course. "Is it not a master's duty to _ know his own boat, how much drift she _ will make under certain conditions of wind: and weather. and how much to hold her up to counteract such an ef- fect? I fully realize that these allow- ances cannot always be made to the de- gree of accuracy, but a man with good judgment, and especially if 'he has sailed all his life time, should come suf- ficiently near to it, that he would not be far enough off his course to invite the chances of stranding. The courses can be controlled by other means than those mentioned by Eryas. | At the time the Lake Carriers' com- 29 mittee of captains proposed the idea of an outside course it was pointed out by certain masters (and ones prac- tically conversant with the subject) and boat managers that their courses did not cover the plan to be sought. The idea was correct, but the trouble was that their courses ran too much parallel' with other courses. To over- come this defect in the original plan a two-course system was suggested for these two-lakes. The suggestion was made by several prominent ves- sel managers and masters, who fa- vored the idéa, if such a plan were to be carried out for the purpose of the prevention of collision. It was then that I was asked to write as much in favor of the plan as was con- sistent with the conditions to be en- countered, I did this. The idea was not wholly original with me. It came from men who 'are in the "harness." There is not much that is really orig- inal about the plan, because many of the larger vessels are, and have been, making use of an outside course on these lakes to avoid meeting so many boats. On Lake Huron a two-system course 16° made of it! In "order ta" make but two courses of it you cannot bring your single turning point any closer to the land than what has al- ready been recommended. If a two- system course were to be adopted I- favored the outside course for east bound boats on Lake Superior for east bound boats have not the means of verifying their courses in cloudy or foul weather, while west bound boats can use the Soo River ranges to the very best advantage. Therefore, it is easier for a boat to make courses in cloudy weather bound west than when. bound east, from Duluth or Two Har- bors. If azimuths were always avail- able it would then make no difference. Now, with compass deviations contin- tially changing and no actual way of determining them in cloudy weather, "is it good judgment or poor judgment to suggest a course having plenty of sea room on both sides, or one that has the sea room only on the one side? In other words, in foggy weath- er, when you are not just sure of your course, is it good or poor judg- ment to follow an outside course in preference to an inside or shore course? Is it good judgment or poor judgment in saying that a boat has the means at her disposal for making better courses bound west on Lake Superior than bound east? If you can depend more on your courses going west than going east, is it wise or un- wise to propose an inside course (the present shore course) to an outside course? Which is the more safe to