RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR FREEBOARD. 147 
Tue CHarrMAN:—We would like to have some further comments on this paper. 
If there is no further discussion, we will ask the author to reply to any comments that 
were made. 
Mr. ArnotT:—I wish to thank the members who have taken part in the discussion. 
Mr. Rigg has made out an excellent case for the establishment of a legal load line. Al- 
though at the present time this question of compulsory freeboard legislation is exercising 
the minds of some of our shipowners, I do not know of any naval architect or shipbuilder 
in this country who is not in favor of a definite standard of freeboard being laid down 
for merchant vessels. As Mr. Rigg pointed out, it has become customary for new vessels 
to be paid for at so much per ton deadweight and, if this basis of payment is to continue, 
statutory freeboard regulations administered by an impartial authority are necessary 
if only to place designers, builders and owners on a fair commercial basis. 
While it is true, as Mr. Rigg pointed out, that any well-designed structure will stand 
a reasonable overload without danger of actual collapse, continued and repeated over- 
loading is dangerous especially for a ship structure where the overloading may coincide 
with abnormal weather conditions. Two tankers which had been operating successfully 
for years recently foundered, the structure failing to meet that particular combination 
of circumstances and conditions existing at the time of the casulties as to weather, nature, 
extent and distribution of the cargo loads. 
Mr. Rigg very properly emphasized the importance of draught as a basic factor in 
the design of a ship’s structure, and I think he will agree that in the construction rules 
of the American Bureau of Shipping the load draught is not obscured but has its proper 
place as a factor to be taken account of in the determination of scantlings. 
With reference to the question of a light load line raised by Mr. Saunders, there is no 
doubt that adequate ballasting arrangements areadvisable under modern trading conditions 
where vessels are unfortunately compelled to make long voyages in light condition, and 
a stipulated maximum freeboard would certainly tend to reduce the amounts of the bills 
for damage repairs to the flat of bottom forward. In this connection, it may be of interest 
to mention that a bill has been recently introduced by the Labor Party of the British 
Parliament which contains the provision that every vessel now marked with the statu- 
tory deep load line must in addition be marked with a light load line which must be kept 
submerged when at sea. 
T agree with Mr. Frear that owners of coastwise steamers have nothing to fear from a 
compulsory load-line bill. As a matter of fact, the majority of modern coastwise freight- 
ers would under the existing freeboard regulations be allowed to load deeper than their 
present service draughts. While the older coasting vessels with their light hurricane 
decks and huge cargo doors are not exactly ideal from the point of view of structural 
strength and can only be considered suitable for coasting service, some of the more 
modern coasting vessels are quite up to the standard of strength required by the pro- 
posed rules of the British 1915 Load Line Committee for unlimited service in association 
with their present operating draughts. 
Professor Sadler in his remarks questioned the advisability of laying down an inter- 
national standard of strength for freeboard, and this particular feature of the 1915 Load 
Line Committee’s report will probably come under the fire of criticism at any inter- 
national conference on load lines for the reasons mentioned by Professor Sadler. The 
freeboard of special types such as Great Lakes vessels was without the scope of this paper, 
