BY DEMAND FOR INCREASED SAFETY. 43 



sion of the Atlantic liners; but it would seem that a further subdivision of Atlantic liners 

 carrying a large number of people, principally passengers, would be in order over and 

 above the subdivision by transverse bulkheads. To obtain this subdivision, merely longi- 

 tudinal bulkheads have grave defects, due to the destruction of the stability of the vessel; 

 and the introduction of watertight flats or decks is open to objection on anything except a 

 purely passenger vessel, on account of the difficulty of utilizing the spaces below this deck 

 for the carrying of cargo, without great inconvenience. On the other hand, on the purely 

 passenger vessel, it would seem to me that the introduction of watertight compartments, 

 separate and distinct from the shell of the vessel (which could be formed by means of two 

 watertight flats and two longitudinal bulkheads, near the center of the ship), to limit the 

 amount of water which would enter in case of a collision (which, it seems to me, is the 

 great danger to which these vessels are subjected), would be an advantage; but the scope 

 of my paper hardly covered the transatlantic liners, so that this is only hinted at in the paper. 



In reply to Professor Sadler I would state that it seems to me that the interest which 

 the United States takes in the International Conference of Safety at Sea is not the interest 

 of naval architects, but rather the interest of the passengers — the traveling public; and that 

 it is to be hoped that our representatives will look at it from that point of view and insist 

 that, in the case of those vessels where a large number of lives are involved, the greatest 

 subdivision which is practicable shall be insisted upon. 



In reference to the wing compartments which were recommended in the area of the 

 machinery spaces, perhaps the paper is not very plain, but the object of these wing com- 

 partments was to protect the control of the vessel, not to prevent the vessel from sinking, 

 as a vessel at sea which is not under control is in a very much worse condition than one 

 which is under control. By maintaining wing compartments abreast of the machinery spaces 

 it would limit the extent of the damage due to collision, so as to prevent it from interfering 

 with the working of the machinery of the ship, a matter of considerable importance and 

 value. 



Naval Constructor Tawresey brought up the matter of the subdivision of the ships, as re- 

 gards this subdivision being satisfactory to the owner. It has been advocated by some ship- 

 owners, one at least, that transverse subdivisions will be a help to the stowage of cargo, not 

 a hindrance. If such is the case, then efficient transverse subdivision as advocated in Paper 

 No. 4 should not meet with opposition on behalf of shipowners, except in so far as additional 

 first cost is concerned. 



Naval Constructor Taylor's remarks rather advocated horizontal subdivision by means 

 of decks, but I think I have replied to this in connection with one of the previous comments. 



Both of these papers are primarily related to the construction of the vessel, and not to 

 the additional precautions which should be taken in connection with, safety in case of acci- 

 dents, as to the prevention of fire by means of flue gases or the question of preserving the 

 lives of passengers by means of lifeboats. 



Mr. Linnard's remarks relative to the protection of the anticipated subdivision by lim- 

 iting the number of watertight doors and other openings, it seems to me, are strictly in 

 order, and should be advocated or insisted upon wherever it is practicable to make such pro- 

 tection intact. That would be one disadvantage in a watertight deck — that it must have 

 openings in it which must be capable of operation, and the consequent danger of their being 

 left open when they are needed, when they ought to be closed and watertight. 



