

 128 INSURANCE OF FISHING-BOATS. 



than before she was damaged is simply absurd, and yet 

 this is what underwriters assert as being true. The word 

 they employ when making this assertion is exceedingly 

 appropriate, but it tells against instead of for them. The 

 word is " melioration," which means, " the act or operation 

 of making better." Making what better the damaged 

 part of the vessel, or the vessel itself ? If it mean simply 

 the damaged part, as I contend it does, then the boat- 

 owner ought not to be charged with " new for old," because 

 he is entitled to have the damaged part made as sound 

 and as good as it was before it was damaged. He is not 

 entitled to, and he does not ask for, more than this, but it 

 would be foolish to expect him to be satisfied with less. 

 If the term apply to the vessel itself, then I would ask how 

 and why can the mere repairing of damage make the vessel 

 better than it was before it was damaged ? Speaking 

 paradoxically, the strongest part of a chain is its weakest 

 link ; and the same reasoning which proves this almost 

 self-evident proposition, demonstrates clearly that the mere 

 act of fixing new stanchions and covering-boards, or of 

 replacing broken planks, cannot by any possibility make 

 the hull of the vessel better than it was before the accident 

 occurred which necessitated the repairs. A vessel which 

 has been damaged and then repaired, is generally worth 

 less than she was before the occurrence took place by 

 which she sustained injury, and thereby a loss has been 

 entailed upon the owner. Why, therefore, in addition to 

 such loss, and in addition to the amount which he has to 

 pay for underwriting himself to a certain extent, should he 

 be called upon to pay a third of the cost of the repairs neces- 

 sary to fit his vessel again for sea ? New materials, when 

 properly fitted by skilled labour, undoubtedly make a 

 vessel better than she was when in a damaged state, but it is 



