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

t904] MARINE REVIEW weather when even experienced steamboat men have difficulty in keeping clear of each other, At present, there is no legal way to control those who. operate the motor. vessels to be sure that only persons who may reasonably be expected to exercise good judgment and who know the rules of the road are in charge. Second: In refutation of the statement that the bill if passed would mean that those now owning vapor and electric launches would have to sell them, it might be well to call your attention to the laws of the United States that provide that anyone Owning a small steamer navigated under certain conditions may, after a proper examination and if found qualified, be li- censed to operate his own steamer. This law would, no doubt, be effective still in the case of gasoline and other motor vessels after the passage of the Grosvenor bill even as it is now in the case of motor vessels, ‘of 15 tons or over carrying passengers or freight for hire,’ a number of the owners of such craft having been examined and licensed by the United States local inspectors to navigate their own vessels. Now, if vessels of a certain size must comply with the regulations in regard to having on board persons to operate: them who are familiar with the rules in regard to meeting and passing other vessels, etc., why should not vessels of any size -be required to comply with the same law as is the case with steam vessels? Why. should a vessel of a. certain size be restricted in regard to the number of persons she may _ carry and be required to carry a certain number and character of life-saving appliances for use in case of accident, whilé another vessel of the same class but of smaller tonnage is allowed to take on board as many people as it is possible to induce to take the trip, carrying no life-saving appliances whatever, and with per- sons in charge who are either densely ignorant or wilfully care- less in regard to the laws governing the meeting and passing of water craft, thus endangering the lives of those on board? - “Third: In regard to the statement that the operation of running a launch requires less skill than to row a boat, it seems almost ridiculous to say a* thing, for to anyone at all familiar with the situation, the incorrectness of this statement becomes at once apparent. Else why'should so many articles be written, published in the standard marine periodicals and eagerly de- voured by the owners of gasoline engines in regard to the diffi- culties of running a gasoline engine? Why should so large a number of owners of gasoline boats remove the gasoline engines and substitute steam power? Why, also, should one be treated to the sight any pleasant summer afternoon of a grinning, derisive crowd on the dock watching the efforts of Mr. Gasoline Boat Owner as he sweats and struggles and swears in his efforts to get that ‘pesky’ engine to do its work? It is the firm belief of. the writer hereof that an enormously large percentage of the persons now operating vapor launches would, after the passage of the Grosvenor bill referred to and examination, be granted licenses and allowed to run their boats as usual, but they would be required to know and abide by the rules laid down for the safe navigation of vessels. The small percentage who would fail to secure a license to run their boat would be those who-are so ignorant or incompetent that their removal. from. the water would be a benefit to those allowed to remain, inasmuch as it would remove a menace to the safety of those justly entitled to navigate upon the water highways. Flagrant cases of drunkenness, mis- conduct, etc, on the part of those operating vapor launches would be summarily: dealt with as is now the case with those handling steam vessels, which you must admit would insure greater protection to. those who do behave themselves and have a right to use the water. At present there is no guarantee that the person who handles a gasoline launch with a member of your family or mine as a passenger is not an habitual drunkard or otherwise incompetent to handle a boat wherein are the lives of those dear to us. The comparison made between the motor boat and the automobile is not fairly stated, for there are in every large city, as our author would no doubt discover were he the owner of an automobile, regulations in regarl to speed, etc., of autos and those who operate them must pass an examination before they are allowed to use the public streets. Then, too, sup- pose an auto breaks down, collides with some other vehicle or otherwise ‘runs amuck.’ How quickly would some passer-by assist to pick up the unfortunate occupants of the auto, or how quickly would the ambulance arrive to care for the injured who have alighted on dry land, mind you, as compared to the passen- ger in a disabled or wrecked gasoline boat away from the land, who has no friend near to assist, no ambulance to dash up and carry him to his home or the hospital, and in many, many cases, there is not even a life preserver or even a piece of plank to cling to. Is. the comparison well drawn? Apparently, there is not even a comparison between the two. j “In regard to the opinion expressed that. ‘the animating influence behind this measure is undoubtedly exerted by socie- ties of pilots and engineers for the sole purpose of creating additional places for themselves,’ it appears absurd. ©The asso- ciations of licensed officers of steam vessels are not behind the Grosvenor bill, and that their sentiment, while in favor of it, perhaps, is actuated by motives of self-protection and the pro- tection of the general public. It may be stated that very few, .indeed, of the persons -who serve the necessary time and obtain a license authorizing them to, act in charge of a large lake steamer would aspire to the position of pilot or engineer of a gasoline launch, no matter what here size, class or business.” LicENSED OFFICER. Representative Loudenslager ‘has introduced a bill in the house of representatives providing that automobiles cannot be carried on board ferries while fire is burning in them. ‘to THE TRANSATLANTIC PASSENGER TRADE. The number of vessels in the transatlantic trade which’ én- tered New York harbor last year was less by 368 than in the yeat 1902, nevertheless there was a considerable iticrease in the number of passengers landed there, especially as regards *tween- deckers. Altogether, from foreign ports, 4,013 vessels arrived at New York in, 1903—of this number, 1,870 were British, 676 American, 509 German, 337 Norwegian, 153 Italian, 110 Dutch, 108 French, 78 Danish, 50 Cuban, 42 Spanish,.'32 Austrian, 22 Belgian, 20 Portuguese, 4 Russian, 1 Swedish, and.1 Greek. Of the whole number, 3,114 were steamers, 1,249 being Brit- ish, 494 German, 438 American, etc. The number of passengers brought from foreign ports was 161,276 first and second cabin, and 642,057 in the steerage, against 130,848 and 574,276 re- spectively in the year 1902, The ’tween-deckers were. greater in number than in any previous year. Statistics emanating from New York show how this immense passenger traffic was divided oman the companies engaged in it, in the years 1903 and. 1902, namely: wie : 1903. : 1902. Passengers. Passengers... Steerage. Cabin. ‘Steérage. Cabin. -Hamburg-Amer. Line (Hamburg) 88,721 22,792 84,295 20;100 N. German Lloyd (Bremen)..... 89,503 32,184 81,074 24,588 Red Star Line (Antwerp)..... + 54,726 8866 47,119 6,878 Cie. Gen. Transatlantique (Havre) 51,454 11;502 49,498 8,634 White Star Line (Liverpool).... 45,705 22,418 40,225 ° 18,402 N. Ger. Lloyd (Mediterranean) .. 20,576 3,847. 20,623 . 3,179 Holland-Amer. Line (Rotterdam) 36,761 8,470 32,526 -7,009 Cunard Line (Liverpool) ..1..4:..33,916 * 18.448" .23,050° 16,308 Cunard Line (Mediterranean) .. 241 Te eae Shah t Nay. Gen. Italiana (Medit.)..... 27,379 ° 1,556° 31,430 1,304 American Line (Southampton) ... 16,081 10,560 20,658 14,456 Fabre Line (Mediterranean)-..... 25,124 194.5°31,004°0:? “01 Anchor Line (Mediterranean) :... 26,643 104 26,143. 42 La Veloce Co. (Mediterranean)... 31,148 . 707 20,226 © 483 Prince Line (Mediterranean) .... 16,510 04 14;784' 62 Anchor Line (Glasgow) 92) 02... ; 11,921’ 8,829 9,560. 8,220 Hamburg-American Line (Medit.) 20,333 1,170 14,603. 502 Cia. Transatlantica. (Medit:)° .... ? CER. Tae 80° United: S. S. Co. (Copenhagen)... 14642 2,671 10,524 < 1,816 Meee _ 2 Empreza Ins. de Nav. (Lisbon)... ° Pu Sue OT a tere Linha de Vap. Portu. (Oporto)... 02) ES Se Bre SER Allan State Line (Glasgow) ..... 1,686 1,034 1,999 ° 2,427 Atlantic Transport Co::;(London) ? ? tS eee CEG a ae paren & oe JP ie 6,008 “807 _ It will be observed that the list is minus the last. year’s returns of some of the smaller companies, but the general result is not affected by them, as the totals are given above. As re: gards the emigration. movement from the Mediterranean: to New York, the annexed figures show that it increased considerably last year, and the shares of the various companiés in this branch of. the traffic are thus recorded: eet ee i - 1608. -1902. Hamburg-American Line .,....: gue ta op eee 15,285 North German Lloyd eu aS ie A AS 333423 32,802 Cimard Wine ts 2 ere ee 355 Por Navig. Gen: Italiana’ 2.200 72: UN gae eae Si 2B Ogee ak aaa Pare Eines Ses a ae ee fees QHBIO® * baa ot Wachor bine: ese ee hie Bel ay eek 26,747 Oy Boas Tea Veloce’ Con a nee: Weer Cua ha 31,042 » 20,700 . Prince Line Per ee ee ee 16,613 : . 14,846 Cia.’ Transatlantica 2.08: BHO ma dee oe is 1,554 Total oo oe ek ee ara ke 184,706 165,932 It will be interesting to see what was the part taken in this passenger traffic from North European. ports’ by the com- panies now forming the Morgan combine... The figures are; | © . sake 1c. is 1902. Red Star Line 6 ue a ee ee 53,997 White Star. Little ~:~ esc eee es . 68,123 _ 58,627 ~Holland-American Line ov. i0.05 0. is Ae aot 39,625 Ameritan Lane 0 oe Oe Oe 20,641 U@eitA Atlantic Transport.) 00000, SPR eo e Boe P: 3,843 OU ae eens ee ae eae s beans 191,206 From an analysis of-the returns it results that the two Get- mati companies are credited with about 36 per cent. of the whole passenger traffic in the years 1903 and 1902, while, taking the traffic from the Mediterranean alone, their percentage was 30 in 1903 and: 29 in 1902. The'othet percentages work out as follows (in round numbers) :—for the ‘companies of the Mor- gan combine, 25 in 1903 and 27 in 1902; the Cunard Line, 6%4 in 1903 and 5) in 1902; the French Compagnie Gefierale Transat- lantique, about 8. Shh aes . The ship subsidy law of Austria provides bounties and pre- miums. Iron and steel steamships receive an. annual bounty of $2.44 per ton, while the bounty of iron and steel sailing ships is $1.83,.and that of wooden and part iron sailing ships is $1.23 a ton. Iron and steel sailing ships have their bounties increased by ten per cent. if built in Austrian ship yards, and by 25 per cent. if at least half of the raw material used in their construction is of Austrian origin. « “