LS 
ON THE MAXIMUM DIMENSIONS OF SHIPS. 5 
upon. Before ironwas substituted for wood as the principal material for ship- 
building there was a period—within the recollection of the writer and many 
of his professional brethren who are still actively at work—when an upper 
limit of size and engine power seemed to have been reached in wood-hulled 
ships. Since that date metallurgists have made great advances and progress 
is still being made; and on this side there is no bar to immediate and con- 
siderable increase’ in the dimensions of ships. The margin of possibility 
indeed appears to go far beyond any probable demand. 
IV. Existing physical conditions in the seaports, harbors and docks of 
the world, necessarily impose limits on the draught of water of ships. Much 
has been done, at great cost, to improve accommodation and to provide 
increased depths of water; but it is well recognized that the increase in 
dimensions of ships above described has been chiefly in lengths, breadths and 
moulded depths; the increase in draughts of water when fully laden has been 
relatively small. This is made clear by the figures in Table I. Since 1899 
the lengths and depths of Trans-Atlantic steamships have been increased 
about 30 per cent., breadths have been increased nearly 40 per cent., but 
deep load-draughts by only 10 per cent. ‘This disproportionate increase in 
draught of water has imposed difficulties and disadvantages on the work of 
ship-design which need not be dwelt upon in this gathering. Shipowners 
find themselves debarred from loading many existing vessels to the full 
draughts to which they might be safely laden, were there sufficient depths of 
water at terminal ports and were cargoes available. The earning powers of 
ships are thus lessened, and in these circumstances it is natural that a 
demand should have arisen and should still continue, for greater depths of 
water and better accommodation for ships of the largest size. 
While shipowners and shipbuilders urge upon authorities and proprietors 
of harbors and docks the necessity for prompt and liberal action, the latter 
may well be pardoned if they do not immediately respond to the demand, 
but require evidence that the large expenditure which would be needed 
to carry out these great engineering works will be followed by a corresponding 
and adequate increase of revenue. ‘The difference in point of view is natural 
and inevitable. It is idle for those who are interested in ship development 
to ignore or treat as unreasonable this attitude of dock and harbor authori- 
ties who are responsible for a return to investors on the enormous capital 
sums administered by them. Of course there are some great works which 
may be and are properly treated as national rather than private or local 
enterprises. The Ambrose Channel at New York—the navigation of the 
St. Lawrence and the Kiel Canal furnish examples; but such enterprises are 
exceptional in character and are avowedly undertaken for the benefit of the 
