Sept. 28, 1895.] 



boathas frequently raced under conditions for which she was not 

 designed; and her owner has been at a disadvantage, owing to the 

 time spent in traveling, in the matter of alterations and constant 

 trial. As a rule Mr. Brand's boats have been best off the wind and 

 especially in reaching, and not so good to windward, the new boat 

 being no exception. 



The Solent half-raters have been frequently described and illus- 

 trated in the Forest and Stream and a further description is hardly 

 necessary; the photos, by West & Son, show Scud, a one-rater of 

 the present type, wide and shoal; and one of the Herreshoff boats, we 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



the committee attempted to interfere at the start it would have laid 

 itself open to wholesale criticism, possibly from both sides. 



The America's Cup Committee has replied to Lord Dunraven's letter 

 of Sept. 13 in a dignified but positive and convincing manner, which 

 disposes of several of the immaterial issues raised by Lord Dunraven. 

 We give first the latter's letter, already published, and then the reply 

 of the committee. 



The America's Cup committee has replied to the letter from Lord 

 Dunraven published last week. We reprint the letter, as follows: 



439 Fifth Avenue, Sept. 13, 1895.— Gentlemen: I have the honor to 



■wee winn.— herreshoff X-ratee. 



believe Wee Winn, the half -rater, though the photo is labeled Mor- 

 wena, one-rater. The details of the modern lug: rig, practically a leg 

 o' mutton, are clearly shown in the picture of Scud. Spruce IV. was 

 described last week. 



The America's Cup. 



The following letter should have preceded those published last week, 

 but. it was not given out until Sept. 18: 



"On Board Defender, Sept. 12, '95— Dear Lord Dunraven: Although 

 the regatta committee have given Defender yesterday's race, under 

 the circumstances I should much prefer calling: the race off and re- 

 sailing it to-morrow. I trust this will meet with your views. If so, 

 kindly answer at once. Very truly yours, C. Oliver Ishxin." 



On Sept. 19 the following statement was given out on the part of 

 Lord Dunraven and telegraphed to London: 



"Lord Dunraven would like it clearly understood that the offer con- 

 tained in Mr. Iselin's letter, Sept. 16, which appeared in this morning's 

 paper, to resail either the last two races or the whole series, has never 

 been made known to him either by Mr. Iselin or by the members of the 

 Cup or regatta committees " 



From the comments which we have already seen in some American 

 papers, it appears that the effect of this announcement has been to 

 lead many to the belief that Mr. Iselin's offer to resail the second race 

 had never been made to and declined by Lord Dunraven. That such 

 is not the case, but that the offer was made to his lordship, under- 

 stood and positively declined by him, is shown by Mr. Iselin's letter, 

 as above, and by the reply to it published last week. 



Mr. Iselia, after once having made a protest, and, as it now appears, 

 on good grounds, was not in a position to withdraw it without a de- 

 cision. The feeling between the partisans of Defender and Vigilant is 

 but too well known through the early meetings of the two yachts and 

 the accompanying pointed correspondence, and this feeling still 

 exists. Had Mr. Iselin withdrawn his protect and waived a decision 

 by the committee, it would have been said by many that he had tried 

 on Valkyrie the same tactics of which he was accused in the two eases 

 in which Vigilant was involved; but that owing to the greater prom- 

 inence and the number of witnesses in the Cup race, he was afraid to 

 press the protest to a decision. Contemptible and unjust as such a 

 charge would have been, it is no worse than some of the things already 

 said. In our opinion, having made a protest, and on good grounds, 

 he had no option in justice to himself but to demand a decision on the 

 merits of the case and after all evidence had been heard. Having 

 done this, and being vindicated from the charge of even technical 

 foul sailing, he at once offered to Lord Dunraven to call the race off 

 and resail it. 



The other matter, of a subsequent offer of Mr. Iselin foresail the 

 last two or all three races, was made to the two committees who 

 alone had power to c insider it, and as they decided that it was beyond 

 their powers to accept it, no possible necessity existed for making 

 the double offer known to Lord Dunraven. The publication of Lord 

 Dunraven's statement does an injustice to Mr. Iselin, as it conveys 

 the intimation that he had never offered to resail the second race. 



The discussion of the whole matter of the races, protest and corre- 

 spondence still continues on both sides of the Atlantic, not a few of the 

 British papers condemning Lord Dunraven's withdrawal from a fair 

 course. Most of the writers, however, display an utter ignorance of 

 yacht racing with more or less personal or patriotic bias that robs 

 "their opinions of all value. Sentiment is all very well, and no one has 

 fought longer and harder for fair, just and chivalrous dealing toward 

 all Cup challengers than the Forest and Stream, but we cannot over- 

 look the fact that yacht racing is conducted, for good reasons, under 

 strict technical rules, and that the interpretation of these rules is 

 governed by long established precedent. No one acquainted with 

 both rules and precedent is qualified to discuss the intricate details 

 involved in the case. 



The regatta committee has been condemned not only by Lord Dun- 

 raven, but by many Americans (the latter at least being able to plead 

 ignorance of yachting usage) for not calling the race off under the 

 provisions of Art 10 of the New York Y. C. rules. It is true that 

 under this provision the committee is endowed with extraordinary 

 powers, but it is answerable to the club for the abuse of such powers. 

 There is no precedent for calling a race off at the start on account of 

 an injury of unknown degree to a competitor who is willing to con- 

 tinue the race, nor for ordering a race resailed after a result has been 

 reached, whether by the decision of a protest or otherwise. This 

 special power is intended to cover certain emergencies, as when a 

 leading yacht abandons a race to give aid to a vessel in distress, or 

 when a yacht suffers from some purely external interference. Had 



SNAKE II, 



acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 12 h inst. You say my 

 letter of Wednesday night to Mr. Canfi°ld was net handed in the New 

 York Yacht Club until 1 A. M. on Thursday, and waB not in your hands 

 until 8 A. M. of the same morning. There must, I think, be some mis- 

 take. I received Mr. Canfield's letter at 10:30 P. M. on Wednesday, 

 and my reply was delivered by my own servant at the New York Club 

 at 12:15 A. M. to the club clerk. The steward or clerk in charge was 

 called on the telephone at 12:30 and was requested to find if Mr. Can- 

 field was at the Knickerbocker Club and, if so, to deliver the letter at 

 once. The reply was that he would endeavor to find Mr. Canfield; 

 that he had a short time before left the Knickerbocker Club, and had 

 left word that he would call at 7 A. M. to see if there were any mes- 

 sages for him. 



The request that Mr. Canfield should npt open my letter on the 10th 

 until the protest was decided was unnecessary, as the Cup committee 



SPRUCE I. 



was not hearing the protest; but whether my letter of Wednesday 

 night was delivered at the New York Yacht Club at 12:15 or 1 A. M., 

 whether it was in the hands of the committee at 7 or 8, and whether 

 my letter of the 10th was read at 12:30 or 2:30 P. M., appears to me to 

 be a matter of minor importance. What is of importance to me is to 

 allay the unjustifiable opinion implied in your letter of the 12th that in 

 coming to the decision conveyed to you in my letter of the 10th I went 

 back on the agreement signed by Mr. Smith and myself. 



You say, "We can only regret that the conditions that you named 

 therein — that is, in my letter of the 10th — as absolutely necessary, 

 should not have been so presented when the agreement of terms was 

 formulated." Permit me to observe that I named no particular condi- 

 tions as indispensable, as you will perceive on referring to my letter. 



I hold that in any match a fair field and no favor is a condition 

 precedent to any agreement as to terms , and that, failing that, aDy 

 party has a perfect right to withdraw absolutely or conditionally. 

 Articles of agreement cannot and are not intended to lay down fixed 

 rules to meet every Imaginable contingency. Certain contingencies 

 have arisen, as you are aware. Confining myself to the subject of my 

 letter— the overcrowding: 



As far back as October I wrote concerning the difficulty of insuring 

 a clear course, but did not insist upon my views because I thought the 

 persons responsible should be free to take what steps they thought 

 best. In view of the failure in that respect it might have been better 

 if in my letter of the 10th I had absolutely withdrawn; but my desire 

 to sail off the races was great, and I withdrew conditionally and 

 suggested steps which I thought would remove the difficulty. 



These steps were not taken, and I hold to my determination to sail 

 no more, and so acting I emphatically deny that I went back in any 

 way on the agreement as to terms. 



I did not know whether Messrs. Canfield and Busk were officially 

 representing the committee when they came to see me at the Wal- 

 dorf. I judged by their conversation that they were not, and I under- 

 stood from them that the committee had not come to a definite con- 

 clusion upon my letter, I now conclude, from your communication, 

 that they were officially representing the committee. 



In that case, the proposal made to me by the committee was that I 

 should withdraw from my determination expressed in my letter of the 

 10th, and should sail the third, possibly the final race, on condition 

 tlat sufficient room was secured at the start, and that in any further 

 rices my suggestion that the dates of the races and the times of start- 

 iag should not be made public should be carried out. 



The proposition did not commend itself to me. Nobody denied the 

 overcrowding, of course: but in any case either my complaint was, in 

 the opinion of the committee, unjustifiable, in which case I could not 

 have agreed with them and should ha^e withdrawn, being fully con- 

 vinced of the necessity and prepared to take the full responsibility for 

 d nng so ; or it was justifiable, in which latter case the committee were, 

 t i hin]£. bound to give redress before the next race was sailed. 



I so far withdrew my letter of the 10th as to say I would sail the 

 third race if the committee would undertake to declare the race void 



SPRUCE II. 



If in their judgment either vessel was interfered with by steamers, the 

 committee putting anybody they liked on board, the yachts. I was 

 wiping to leave the matter in their hands, stipulating only that they 

 put experienced and practical yachtsmen on Valkyrie III. As far as I 

 am concerned I have no wish to continue the discussion which you ac- 

 curately describe as superfluous, and will conclude by expressing re- 

 gret that if any desire to resail Tuesday's race was known to exist the 

 regatta committee did not order it resailed under Article X. of the New 

 York Yacht Club regulations, in which case, whatever my opinion as 

 to the cause of the foul may be, I should have been at the disposal of 

 the committee, and that the Cup committee could not see its way to 

 adopting what appears to us the simpler course of hoisting the letter 

 "G" yesterday and postponing the race to such time as they had ar- 

 rived at a definite conclusion upon my letter of the 10th inst. 

 I have the honor to remain, very faithfully, Dunraven. 



New York Yacht Club, New York, Sept. 17, 1895.— My Lord: We 

 have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated Sept. 

 13- We should be glad to limit our reply to acknowledging its receipt, 

 but as this whole matter will probably come before the public we feel 

 that we should correct certain misapprehensions which we fear may 

 arise. 



You say: "The request that Mr. Canfield should not open my let- 

 ter of the 10th was unnecessary, as the Cup committee were not hear- 

 ing the protest." You inform Mr. Canfield that you had learned 

 that the Cup committee had nothing to do with the protest, and at 

 the same time you request him to keep the letter (of the 10th) un- 

 opened until the protest had been decided. You did not inform him 

 that it was unnecessary to refrain from opening your letter. 



If the details which you give as to time of delivery, etc., of letters 

 imply any neglect or discourtesy on the part of the committee, we 

 must deny that there has been any such neglect, and must disclaim 

 any intention of heiDg discourteous— otherwise we agree with you 

 that these facts are of minor importance. 



Your assertion that you named no new conditions in your letter of 

 the 10th is absolutely exact. We should have said in yonr letter of 

 the lltb. In your letter of the 10th you only declined to continue the 

 contest under the existing circumstances, and gave your reasons for 

 declining. In the interview at the Waldorf at 9 P. M., Sept. 11, you 

 stated upon what conditions you would continue, and yuu adopted 

 substantially the same conditions in your letter of Sept. 11. 



In the interview at the Waldorf the two representatives of the com- 

 mittee pledged the committee to one condition, namely: To secure a 

 clear start, and obtained your permission to postpone the time of the 

 starting for that purpose. 



The representatives declined absolutely to agree to the condition 

 that the committee should assume the grave responsibility of declar- 

 ing the race void if in their judgment either vessel were interfered 

 with by the attending vessels. In our opinion it would be impossible 

 to secure a race absolutely free from interference, and the relative 

 amount of interference would be much too delicate a point for us to 

 decide. The representatives declined to agree to postpone the race 

 fixed for the next day, Thursday. The representatives informed you 

 that the question of not announcing the dates and times of starting 

 atiy future races must be submitted to the committee. The represent- 

 atives assured you of renewed efforts through the press and during 

 the race to secure a clear course. You finally declined to say whether 

 you would sail the next day's race (Thursday's) or not, and said that, 

 in any event, Valkyrie would cross the starting line. 



In view of the definite replies given by them, we cannot understand 

 how you could doubt that the representatives sent you were acting 

 for and with the authority of the committee. 



As to postponing Thursday's race in order to consider your letter of 

 the 11th, the committee felt that the points had been fully covered in 

 the conference at the Waldorf and did not desire more time for recon- 

 sideration of the answers given by the representatives at that time. 

 The committee did not consider as practicable your suggestion to 

 keep secret the dates and times of starting any future races. 



You raise the question as to whether your complaint of the steamers 

 was justifiable or not. The steamers undoubtedly interfered with 

 Valkyrie, and Defender as well, and there seems to be no reason why 

 you should not have complained of such interference; but we cer- 

 tainly demur to your conclusion that therefore the Cup committee , 

 having admittedly done all in their power, were bound to give redress 

 before the next race was sailed. 



You fully knew the objections to a course off New York two years 

 ago, and nearly one year ago you suggested a change of locality. 

 This proposition we declined at that time. There was the best of 



BUCKET WELL. 



