صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني
[blocks in formation]

SIMPKIN, MARSHALL & CO., STATIONERS' HALL COURT;

J. D. POTTER, 31, POULTRY.

KENT & CO., PATERNOSTER ROW

AND THE PRINCIPAL NAUTICAL PUBLISHERS AT ALL SEAPORTS.

LONDON:

PRINTED BY PEWTRESS & Co.,

Steam Printing Works,

28, LITTLE QUEEN STREET, LINCOLN'S INN FIELDS, W.C.

THE

NAUTICAL MAGAZINE

FIFTY-SECOND YEAR.

VOLUME LII.-No. I.

JANUARY, 1883.

RECENT FREEBOARD TABLES.

W

E understand that some remarks made by us in the article on Recent Freeboard Tables, in our December number, are liable to be somewhat mis

understood as regards their bearing upon the question of deck erections in connection with the Board of Trade Rule of Freeboard. In stating that our objection to that rule is that it gives the same allowance for deck erections without regard to the size of the vessel, we intended to advocate the dealing with them in the same way that the general question of freeboard is dealt with. Both Lloyd's tables and the Board of Trade rule require not merely more spare buoyancy and more freeboard for large vessels than for small ones, but a larger percentage of spare buoyancy in the one case, and a larger rate per foot depth of hold in the other. Lloyd's tables do this in a roundabout way, first requiring larger percentages of buoyancy as the depth of the vessel increases, then requiring further increases in the case of extreme proportions; the Board of Trade rule acts upon the more direct and sensible method of fixing the rate per foot depth of hold by the length. Both rules further act on the same principle as regards awning-decks, the Board of Trade rule allowing a reduction of the freeboard required for a flush-decked vessel to the extent of one-third

VOL. LII.

A

in a vessel otherwise the same, except that she has an awning-deck. When, however, we come to the case of a poop or other deck erection, the allowance is the same in inches, whatever be the size of the ship. A definite number of inches immersion of course means in a larger ship very much more extra cargo than in a small one; but when the allowance for an awning-deck is in one ship, twelve inches, and in another twenty four inches, the allowance for a poop should not in both cases be the uniform four inches.

There is, however, another feature of the case which beneficially modifies the application of the rule in many vessels having very large deck erections, accompanied by considerable sheer, causing those deck erections to largely influence the freeboard. The Board of Trade rule prescribes the measurement of clear side at the lowest part of the exposed deck; hence the result, that in vessels with poops of more than half their length, and having also large sheer, the freeboard, per rule, at the front of the poop, gives practically a small midship freeboard, the difference between the two being the rise of sheer in that portion of the vessel's length.

In some extreme cases the allowance is thus so far augmented, that a vessel with a very small well far forward might be loaded as deeply as if she came under the awning-deck clause of the rule. This fact is undoubtedly another proof of the care with which the rule was framed, and of its general suitability to its purpose. It is really a rule on which to stop ships as overladen, when no time must be wasted, and when much must be left to the judgment of the detaining officer on the spot.

We think, however, that in the present state of the question it would be the better arrangement to measure freeboard amidships, and give a fractional allowance for deck erections, the relation of such an allowance to that for an awning-deck to depend upon the part of the deck covered. This would be obtained irrespective of the sheer of the ship, the latter being an element of the question which should also have its separate and proper effect, irrespective of deck erections. We may add, too, that some such method will best meet the case of deck erections which do not cover the midship point of the ship's length, and which still are of considerable importance and value.

SEAMEN REFUSING TO GO TO SEA.

STRANGE IGNORANCE OF THE STATE OF THE LAW AT
LIVERPOOL.

HE following letter recently appeared in the Journal of Commerce, on the subject of seamen refusing to go to sea in a ship from that port. It is instructive and useful for three reasons :-First, because the case is clearly put; secondly, because the ignorance and misapprehension prevailing at Liverpool are completely discovered; and, thirdly, because it gives us an opportunity of putting the matter straight.

Here follows the letter, which for convenience of reference we have divided into paragraphs, which we have numbered.

"SIR,-On Saturday last, as the steamer, Lord Clive, was clearing for sea in the river, (1), three of the seamen who had sailed in the ship for several voyages, and had signed articles for the present voyage, took their bags and jumped into the tug which was attending the ship, and (2) despite of all entreaties, refused to return on board, their object no doubt being to prevent the steamer Lord Clive, going to sea that tide. If (3) violence or brute force had been resorted to, no doubt the result would have been disgraceful to seamen on the river Mersey. The above occurrence was witnessed by the Board of Trade officers, (4), who were on board at the time, and part of whose duty it is to see the crew mustered (5), and had it not been that we had substitutes at hand, the ship would have been detained. The deserters on stepping from the tug to the Landing-stage walked away at their leisure (6), the police having no power to detain them. Under these circumstances, what is to be done? To talk of summoning is simply ridiculous; where are the men? Doubtless they have gone to sea in other ships.

"May I suggest the propriety of publishing all such lawless men's names, and exhibiting them in large characters at all the shipping offices (7), so as to prevent the recurrence of such unprin

« السابقةمتابعة »