146 RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR FREEBOARD. 
Tables or tables in close agreement and given them the force of law. This, in a measure, 
establishes an international load line between those nations and facilitates the inter- 
change of courtesies by one country recognizing assignments made by another which 
often safeguards a vessel against detention when loading in a foreign port. While the 
United States has not adopted the British Board of Trade Freeboard Tables, it may 
be said that the United States Shipping Board, Emergency Fleet Corporation, has done 
so inasmuch as it requires an assignment according to these tables, on all of its veessls. 
No time should be lost in giving this the force of law pending the next international 
conference on load lines. 
Pror. HERBERT C. SADLER, Member of Council:—As a member of the present load- 
line commission, perhaps it is not proper for me to anticipate the report of that commis- 
sion. One or two points have been raised in the paper which I think could properly be 
discussed in this meeting. 
Amongst the essential considerations determining freeboard are the conditions of 
service. As we all know, the conditions of service of ocean-going vessels and coasting 
vessels, and vessels on the Great Lakes, particularly, are entirely different, and the 
standard of strength that is sufficient for ocean-going work will, of course, be far in 
excess of that necessary for some of these other types of vessels. That question is being 
investigated very fully just now for the Great Lakes and coasting vessels. | 
That brings up the subject of strength of ships generally. You may recall that a 
British report is mentioned in the paper which recommends a certain standard of strength. 
Personally, I have always felt that is a mistake. We have certain recognized registry 
societies today, and their standards of strength, I think, could well be taken’ as those 
necessary for freeboard. It rather adds another annoyance to the designers of ships to 
introduce a factor of strength in connection with freeboard. You can see what would 
happen. You might work out an I/Y factor for the midship section suitable for the free- 
board and then submit that section to the registry society, and the first thing you know 
it would come back covered with red ink. Probably a number of the details of that 
section you had designed might not be accepted by the registry society, and yet it would 
be perfectly satisfactory from the freeboard standpoint. 
I think it was a mistake in the British Committee to lay down any standard in that 
way. ‘The simpler method would have been to accept the standard registry societies’ 
rules, because, after all, there is not a very great difference in this respect between all 
the principal well-known societies today. Somebody might suggest that in the future 
there would be nothing to prevent a new registry society coming out with less stringent 
requirements. I think that can well be safeguarded if the rules call for a standard equal 
to that of existing societies at the present day. 
It is rather unfortunate that there should be the feeling amongst certain shipowners 
and shipbuilders that the establishment of a load line is going to work a hardship upon 
them. As a matter of fact, if you carry the thing out to its logical conclusion, certainly 
judging from past history, the result is just the opposite. There may be a few people 
who are overloading ships today, but I think there are very few who might suffer, but 
in the long run the shipowning business is going to gain by proper regulation. The 
question of insurance is surely going to be affected as the probability of loss is cut down — 
by reasonable legislation. 
