FOREST AND STREAM. 
[Feb. 8, 1896. 
Whether the committee is wrong or right in this we do not propose to 
argue; it is quite enough that it has to all appearances conducted a 
fair and impartial investigation, in which the whole truth has been 
laid bare; the question of its future dealings with Lord Dunraven is 
one that may well be left to the New York T. C. as a body. That in 
the continued absence of a retraction and apology some fitting pun 
ishment will be inflicted can hardly be doubted from the present 
temper of the members. 
An interesting question that suggests itself in this connection is 
the possible action of the Royal Yacht Squadron. Thus far the 
Squadron has devoted its efforts solely to keeping clear of the whole 
matter; but it is quite obvious that it must sooner or later take some 
positive action either indorsing or repudiating its chosen represent- 
ative. The position is a very plain one; the Royal Yacht Squadron has 
guaranteed to the New York Y. C. that Lord Dunraven was a gentle- 
man and a yachtsman fully worthy to represent it. This representative 
is now in the position of having publicly preferred charges of foul deal 
iag against a member of the New York Y. C, its representative in the 
international races. These charges having now been proved ground- 
less, the Royal Yacht Squadron can in no way ignore the public acts 
of its representative, but must express itself in approval or disap- 
proval; in fact, in our view of interclub ethics, the club indorsing a 
challenger should be prepared to accept full responsibility for all of 
his actions throughout the entire contest. It is only by the enforce- 
ment of this reasonable rule that clubs holding valuable challenge 
trophies can be protected from challenges by improper or irresponsi- 
ble individuals. If a club is prepared to indorse as its representative 
a man of unknown or doubtful reputation, it. must be held strictly to 
account for his conduct. 
The methods pursued by Lord Dunraven are only too characteristic 
of his whole career as a yachtsman— erratic, vacillating and altogether 
devoid of any rational principle. The charges made by him have one 
plain meaning, and one only: that Mr. C. Oliver Iselin has been guilty 
of fraud and cheating. In making his charges, no matter how they 
were worded, he muBt have known, as all the world did, exactly what 
they meant; and yet he has shirked and squirmed and quibbled over 
simple English words until, in his examination by the opposing coun- 
sel, he was compelled to admit that c-h-e-a-t spelled cheat and was 
synonymous with fraud. What little respect he might have claimed 
by boldly formulating his charges and standing by them has been 
forfeited by consistent cowardice throughout; by his denial that in 
making such charges he was imputing fraud to Mr. Iselin personally; 
by his announcement on his arrival in New York that he did not come 
as a complainant, but only to aid the club; and by bis sudden and un- 
expected disappearance when the only honorable course open to him 
was obviously to remain until the conclusion of the inquiry and then 
to make the most complete apology possible. From first to last, his 
conduct in the matter has been craven and childish, and utterly lack- 
ing in that boldness which of itself commands a certain amount of 
respect, even from an adversary. 
At last the long-expected report of the special committee, accom, 
panied by the evidence, has been mide public; and every one inter 
ested may form his own conclusions from the evidence. The report, 
itself is in every way an able one, and save in the foolish and abortive 
attempt to secure ab3oluie secrecy for an indefinite time, the whole 
work of the committee reflects the highest credit upon the five gentle- 
men to whom this unpleasant task was allotted by the New York Y. 
C. The report is clear, logical and conclusive, and no comment of ours 
could add to it in any way. The committee has seen tit to go no further 
than to pass upon the evidence, and has left the question of the punish, 
mentof the offender entirely to the club, contenting itself withfully ex- 
onerating Mr. Iselin and opening to his defamer a way for an apology. 
Incidentally it will be noticed that the report itself refutes the various 
"exclusive 11 rumors of the daily papers as to the proposed action of 
the committee which have appeared from day to day since the closing 
Of the examination. The committee, in concluding, take pains to 
Score severely, but deservedly, the New York Herald for the surrepti- 
tious publication of a part of the testimony. 
There are many yachtsmen, British as well as American, who have 
feared above all things a "Scotch verdict"; that after such a lapse of 
time the truth as to Lord Dunraven^ charges could not be ascer- 
tained, and that the dispute would live and rankle for years. To all 
such the evidence will be an agreeable disappointment, as from its 
nature and extent it is as convincing as could possibly be desired. On 
the side of the protestant the evidence is weak and faulty in the ex- 
treme, amounting to nothing more than that Lord Dunraven and 
several of his party thought that Defender was too deeply immersed. 
There is absolutely nothing in their presentment of the case to justify 
the serious charges of foul play and fraud. 
The evidence for the defense, on the other hand, is not only most 
voluminous, including the direct testimony and cross-examination of 
witnesses by the score and the sworn depositions of others, but it deals 
with actual facts and figures, with surveys of the yacht made at dif- 
ferent times and by independent parties; every de'.ail of her ballasting 
is brought to light, and it is shown beyond doubt that such a fraud as 
is charged was clearly impossible. The evidence of Lord Dunraven 
alone would go far to convince most men that he had no case, but the 
evidence on behalf of Defender must convince ail who take the trouble 
to read it. 
B Apart from the many vital points, there are some side issues which 
are of little importance, and which it is needless to waste time and 
space in discussing; the principal one being the apparent attempt to 
suppress the whole matter and Lord Dunraven's letter to Mr. Kersey, 
the latter's interview with es-com. James D. Smitii, and the cable 
message to the secretary of the Royal Yacht Squadron. There is 
more or less mystery about all this correspondence, which to all 
appearances is not worth the trouble of attempting to clear up. 
In our opinion the most important of the side issues is that raised 
by Lord Dunraven in his charge that his request that the Cup com- 
mittee should place men on each yacht until they could b» measured 
was disregarded. As originally made, this charge reflected severely 
on Mr. Fish, the member of the committee who sailed on Valkyrie. Mr. 
Fish very wisely said nothing until the proper time came, and then he 
gave before the committee a clear, succinct and business-like state- 
ment of Lord Dunraven 's first complaint, producing a written memo- 
randum made by him at the time and submitted to Lord Dunraven 
for his approval. It is only necessary to compare the bold, positive 
and straightforward story of Mr. Fish with the lame and uncertain 
statements of Lord Dunraven on the stand, failing to remember about 
the memorandum until all the details were recalled to him, to agree 
With the conclusion of the special committee that no demand was 
made by Lord Dunraven that men be placed aboard each yacht, 
The Dunraven Inquiry. 
The special meeting of the New York Y. 0. called to receive the 
report of the special committee appointed to investigate the charges 
made by Lord Dunraven against Mr. C. Oliver Iselin was held on Jan. 
31 , with Com. Brown in the chair, and a very large attendance of 
members. The meeting was called to order at 9 o'clock, the members 
of the special committee being all present with the exception of Mr. 
E. J. Phelps, who was out of town. In his absence Mr. J. Pierpont 
Morgan read the report for the committee: The body of the report is 
as follows: 
Upon cross-examination Lord Dunraven admitted in substance that 
he judged by the eye solely, and that the Defender might not have 
been sunk more than Sin. ; that he could not be tied down to a definite 
statement in this respect; that the discharge hole mentioned was the 
only mark by which he was enabled to verify the accuracy of his ob- 
servation; that in observing the vessel on the morning of the 7th, 
through the glass, he saw only her starboard side, the pipe hole being 
on the port side; that there was then a ripple on the water of 3 or 4in. : 
that at the distance of 200yds. he could not accurately estimate a dif- 
ference in immersion; that the only other rpportunity he had of ob- 
servation that morning was when he rowed out to the Defender to put 
his representative on board, and passed round the port side; that he 
thought the bobstay bolt was about 12 or I4in. above the water on the 
6th, and some 8 or lOin. on the 7th, judging from observation alone; 
that he thought the l.w.l. was lengthened by the increased immersion 
about 1ft., though he did not judge from that, but only from the ap- 
parent depth of the vessel in the water as compared with his recollec- 
tion of her in the basin the day before. 
The testimony of Mr. Glennie, who appeared before the committee 
in person, and of Mr. Ratsey, whose ex-parte statutory declaration 
was read, was also produced on the part of Lord Dunraven. These 
witnesses spent the night of Sept. 6 on board the City of Bridgeport 
with Lord Dunraven, and at about 6 o'clock in the morning of the 7th 
they rowed around the Defender in a small boat. Their evidence was 
to the same general effect as that of Lord Dunraven, on the point of 
the apparent increase in the immersion of the Defender. 
Mr. Glennie placed the apparent immersion at about lJsin. more on 
the 7th than on the 6th. 
Testimony to the same effect was also introduced in the shape of an 
ex-parte statutory declaration of Mr. Watson, the designer of the Val- 
kyrie, who testified that on the morning of the first official measure- 
ment, at Erie Basin, he plainly saw above water the pipe hole men- 
tioned by Lord Dunraven, but did not see the Defender on the morn- 
ing of the race, and that on the day of the remeasurement he again 
saw the pipe hole above water. 
Similar ex-parte declarations from Capts. Cranfleld and Sycamore, 
of the Valkyrie, were also read. They confirmed from general obser- 
vation the statement of Lord Dunraven as to the apparent increased 
immersion of the Defender, but neither of these witnesses saw the 
Defender except from the deck of the Valkyrie, at a distance of about 
300yds. 
Three other witnesses were mentioned by Lord Dunraven to the 
committee as persons whom he thought would give evidence to the 
same effect as above stated : Mr. Kersey, a resident of New York, who 
had been the representative of Lord Dunraven in the United States in 
matters connected with this match; the captain of the steamer City of 
Bridgeport, which was used at the races as a tender to the Valkyrie, 
and the pilot of the Valkyrie. These witnesses were not produced. 
It was not claimed that their evidence would be other than cumulative 
to that given by the other witnesses on the part of Lord Dunraven, 
and of the same character. Nevertheless the committee, on their own 
account, not being authorized to issue compulsory process for the 
attendance of witnesses, invited the attendance of Mr. Kersey, which 
he declined to give, stating as his reason the objection of those for 
whom he acted in his business. And they made such efforts as they 
could to obtain the other two witnesses, but without success. Mr. 
Young, the pilot, was at sea. Capt. Parker, of the City of Bridgeport, 
though quite willing to appear, was unable to attend. 
It will be perceived, therefore, that considering this case in the first 
place, upon the evidence introduced on the part of Lord Dunraven 
al»ne, the only proof in support of the charge it involves consists in 
the opinions of the witnesses above referred to, formed merely by 
looking at the vessel in the water on two successive days, that on the 
latter day she was from to 4in. lower in the water than on the 
former, and that these opinions were based solely upon the general 
appearance of the vessel as apparent to the eye, and upon no meas- 
urement or other data whatever by which they could be verified, ex- 
cepting only that a pipe hole of about an inch in diame:er, which on 
the firBt day was just at the waters edge, was the next day not to be 
seen. The committee attach no importance to the opinions of the 
witnesses who only saw the Defender from a distance of 200 or 300yds. 
There remain, therefore, but three persons— Mr. Glennie, Mr. Ratsey 
and Lord Dunraven himself —who ever got near enough to the Defender 
to see the pipe hole, even if it had been visible. 
It is obvious that a very slight list of the vessel to starboard might 
have made this pipe hole visible on the first day, and that a similar list 
to port might have made it invisible on the second, quite irrespective 
of its actual position in reference to the l.w.l. A difference of 3 or 4in. 
in the distance of the bobstay bolt from the water might, if it existed, 
have easily occurred from a change in the trim of the vessel in conse- 
quence of the presence of the crew and their belongings in the fore- 
castle or other temporary cause, bringing her a little down by the 
head. Lord Dunraven himself says in his publication, above quoted, 
that the difference in the height of the bobstay bolt above the water 
might result from an alteration in trim. 
The Erie Basin, wbere the Defender was observed on the first day, 
is a small, entirely inclosed space, where the water is practically 
smooth. On the second day the Defender lay inside of Sandy Hook in 
the lower bay of New York, a large body of water open to the ocean 
for five or six miles on its easterly side. Its surface is necessarily at 
all times in motion, and during the night between the two days the 
wind had been blowing heavily. It is obvious that the difference in 
the condition of the water in which the Defender lay upon the two 
days might well have produced a difference of apparent immersion. 
The fraud that is involved in the charge thus made, if it is found to 
be true, is a very grave one, utterly destructive to the reputation of 
all who should appear to have been concerned in it, and especially 
odious under the circumstances of a friendly contest between citizens 
of different countries, exciting international interest, and supposed to 
be conducted by gentlemen, upon a high plane of honor and mutual 
confidence. 
From the magnitude and difficulty of the operation necessary to its 
consummation, it must unavoidably, if it occurred, have been partici- 
pated in not only by Mr. Isflin and those concerned with him in the 
management of the Defender, but by all officers and crew of that ves- 
sel, and many others incidentally employed. 
It appeared from the evidence of Mr. Herreshoff, the designer of 
the Defender, confirmed by other witnesses, that to nave pro- 
duced an increased immersion of lin. on the Defender would nave 
required 7,1351bs. of additional weight, or about three and a quarter 
long tons; that to have produced such an immersion of 3in. would 
have required about nine and three-quarters tons; and an immersion 
of 4in., about thirteen tons; and that an immersion of lin. would have 
lengthened the l.w.l. 8in,, and in the same proportion for each addi- 
tional inch of immersion. If such a result was produced, therefore, 
all the weight thus shown to be required must have been removed 
from the vessel before the first measurement on the 6th, replaced 
during the night of that day, and again removed during the night of 
the 7th, in time for the remeasurement on the 8th, And this was Lord 
Dunraven , s theory, as finally stated upon cross-examination. 
Such a fraud should not even be.charged without due regard, first, 
to the established character of those upon whom the imputation of 
guilt must fall; and second, to the kind and degree of tne evidence 
upon which it rests. To justify even accusation, suspicion must at 
least be reasonable; yet upon the hearing before the committee, the 
evidence above summarized (and hereafter appended iu full), so slight, 
so extremely liable to mistake, is all that is offered in justification of 
the charge publicly made in the London Meld. It is not readily to be 
believed that any expert, however skillful, could. determine by the eye, 
between one day and another, and under circumstances so diverse, a 
difference so trifling in the displacement of a vessel, especially one 
with which his previous acquaintance was small. Lord Dunraven him- 
self had the candor to say that he did not claim that this evidence, 
even irrespective of anything that was shown to the contrary, estab- 
lished the truth of his charge; he did claim, however, that the omission 
of the Cup committee either to remeasure the Defender on the evening 
of the race or to put a representative on board to remain during the 
night, so far prevented the proof or disproof of his claim as to justify 
him in renewing it after the matter had been revived by the Cup com- 
mittee's report of Oct. 24; and that point will be specially considered 
hereafter. 
But the case was not left to stand upon the evidence thus far re- 
viewed. 
On the part of Mr. Iselin there was introduced the testimony of a 
large number of witnesses, including, besides his own, that of the de- 
signer of the Defender, the official measurer, the captain, all the 
officers and all the crew of the Defender, numbering thirty in all (ex- 
cepting five seamen, who were shown to be at sea and therefore inac- 
cessible), all the gentlemen who were on board the Defender at the 
time ot the race and all other persons, so far as the committee could 
iea r n, who had such means of observation as enabled them to know 
any facts material to the Issue. These witnesses were.personally 
present, except thirteen seamen, whose testimony was taken by ex- 
parte affidavits. 
By this evidence there was established, to the entire satisfaction of 
the committee, the facts no w to be stated. 
The Defender, by her original design, was built and intended to sail 
without any loose ballast whatever, all weight thought necessary 
being introduced into the keel by a single casting, to the amount of 
about 85 tons. This calculation was based upon the rule of the New York 
Y. C. requiring yachts to sail in such races with their tanks, fittings, 
bulkheads, etc , on board, as when prepared for ordinary use. 
During all the sailinz of the Defender after her completion down to 
the time of this race, including various trials with the Vigilant to de- 
termine which of those yachts should be entered in the competition 
for the Cup, the Defender had sailed without any loose ballast what- 
ever, but with her tanks, fittings, etc, on board. She was measured 
officially for the trial races on Aug. 31, 1895, and her load waterline 
was then found to be 88.85ft. She sailed with this line in all races 
prior to the Cup race now in question, when ber load waterline was 
found by the official measurement of Sept. 6 to be 88.45ft., a difference 
of but 4.8in. in length, corresponding to 3-5in. of immersion. She is a 
boat of unusual stability and power, and all the evidence, both 
scientific and practical, was to the effect that additional ballast be- 
yond what she originally contained was not required, and would cer- 
tainly have diminished rather than improved the speed of the boat. 
Such was the opinion at tho time of the race of Mr. Herreshoff, the 
designer; Capt. Haff, her sailing master, and Mr. Iselin. 
It is plain, therefore, that no motive existed for increasing the bal- 
last of the Defender. It cannot be supposed that there could have 
been an intention to place the vessel upon a different trim . from that 
previously determined by her designer and manae-er to be the best. 
After the arrival of the Valkyrie in the United States it was found 
that she was stripped of her fittings, water tanks, bulkheads, etc., 
and not in a condition to comply with the rule of the New York Y. C. 
above mentioned. A clause was accordingly introduced in the de- 
tailed agreement for the Cup races, executed on Sept. 4, waiving that 
rule. 
On Sept. 4 and 5 the Defender, while at New Rochelle, was stripped 
and had all her fittings, water tanks, bulkheads, etc., taken out of her, 
which were weighed and found to be about 7,0001bs. Before this 
material had been removed from the upper part of the vessel, Mr. 
Herreshoff and Mr. Iselin had estimated that its weight could be 
efficiently replaced by two tons of loose ballast in the hold. Two tona 
of lead, consisting of forty-two pigs, were therefore obtained from 
New York, carried by steamboat to New Rochelle, and there put in 
the hold. The weight of the material removed proved, however, to 
be greater than they had anticipated, and they accordingly decided to 
add one ton more of lead ballast; and another ton was thereupon sent 
from New York to the Erie Basin. On Sept. 6, the day of the first 
official measurement, at the Erie Basin, and prior to the measurement, 
this ton of lead, consisting of twenty-one pigs, waB placed tempo- 
rarily on the cabin floor of the Defender, above the place it was to 
occupy in the hold. On the evening of Sept. 6, the day before the race, 
it being found that this lead could not be stowed in the hold without 
the pigs being cut in two, it was carried on to the Hattie Palmer, her 
tender, which was alongside, and each of the twenty-one pigs was cut 
in two, carried back again, and stowed in the hold of the Defender. 
• About five tons of lead ballast were in like manner put on board the 
Valkyrie shortly before the measurements, some portion of which at 
the time of the first measurement was temporarily placed on her 
cabin floor. 
It was very clearly proved that the Defender had not been lightened 
in any way before the first official measurement on Sept. 6, except by 
the taking out of the tanks, fittings, etc., above mentioned (the 
weight of which had been replaced by lead ballast to the extent indi- 
cated), and by the substitution of a steel boom and gaff for the 
wooden spars theretofore in use. Nor was any other ballast or 
weight of any description put upon the Defender after the official 
measurement of Sept. 6 and before the race on the 7th, or taken out 
of her after the race on the 7th and before the remeasurement on the 
8th. 
There were no tanks left in the boat into which water could have 
been introduced as ballast, and the hold was examined and found to 
be dry immediately before and during the race. Lord Dunraven ad- 
mitted that water could not have been used as ballast without tanks 
to contain it. After the Defender's bulkheads were removed at New 
Rochelle she was open from stem to stern, so that no ballast could 
have been concealed. Mr. Iselin personally examined the hold before 
the measurement on Sept. 6. Immediately before the race on Sept. 7 
both Mr. Iselin and Mr. Herreshoff examined the hold again to see 
how the twenty-one pigs had been stowed the night before, and the 
condition of the hold as to water. No ballast of any kind, to any 
material amount, could possibly have been put on board or taken off 
the Defender, as the committee believe, without the knowledge of all 
the officers and crew, and of Mr. Iselin and his guests. 
The work referred to by Lord Dunraven as done on board the De- 
fender the night before the race was the moving and cutting and re- 
placing of the lead before mentioned, and likewise work done by a 
party of riggers in fitting new wire ropes forming bridles for the 
mainsheet blocks— several riggers from New York, as well as the 
officers and crew of the Defender, testifying before the committee 
that they were engaged on such work that night, and that it lasted 
until 3 o'clock in the morning, a.nd was of a nature to make consider- 
able noise. The Hattie Palmer, after lying a short time alongside, 
left the Defender for the night before 10 o'clock both on that evening 
and the next, and did not return to the Defender on either night. 
In respect to the pipe hole on the port side of the Defender, noticed 
by Lord Dunraven at the time of the measurement the day before the 
race, and which proved to be the discharge of the bilge pump, it was 
shown by a careful measurement and survey made by Mr. De Luze, a 
civil engineer experienced in such work, assisted by Mr. Hyslop, the 
official measurer, and testified to by them, that when the vessel lay 
in still water, trimmed and ballasted as she was on Sept. 8, the dis- 
charge hole would not be visible, being entirely below the l.w.l. as de- 
fined by the external marks affixed on that day, as above stated ; and 
this was shown upon a drawing prepared by Mr. De Luze. 
This hole was not, as thought by Lord Dunraven and his witnesses, 
about an inch in diameter, but was 2J^in. in diameter. 
It is not disputed that the Defender was in substantially the same 
trim and the same degree of immersion on both the 6th and 8th of Sep- 
tember. And Mr Hyslop testified positively that the marks which 
had been painted on tne Defender in his presence by Mr. Wat- 
son were still visible at the time of the hearing before the committee, 
identically as they had been put on. 
The committee had no reason to doubt the accuracy of these meas- 
urements, or the correctness of the evidence in resDect to them. But 
they deemed it most important that it should be settled beyond any 
possible question whether the discharge hole of the bilge pump was or 
was not visible above the l.w.l. if the vessel was upon an even keel. 
At the request of the committee, therefore, Capt. Mahan kindly under- 
took to make a further examination of the Defender, now lying at New 
Rochelle, with reference to this point. He made a visit to the yacht iu 
company with Mr. Iselin and Mr. Askwith, but found that under the 
uncertain weather conditions prevalent at this season a measurement 
, direct from the water surface was scarcely practicable, and recom- 
mended that the matter in question should be settled by measure- 
ments starting from points of origin within the yacht hferself. He 
therefore obtained from the Brooklyn Navy Yard, through the kind- 
ness of Naval Constructor Bowles, the services of Mr. Hibbs, an assist- 
ant naval constructor in the United States Navy, who, without being 
apprised of the result reached by Mr. De Luze and Mr. Hyslop, or see- 
ing the drawings, went to New Rochelle and made a careful measure- 
ment of the location of the bilge pump discharge in reference to the 
l.w.l. as marked on the Defender externally by Mr. Watson. The 
request made to Constructor Bowles for the committee was as fol- 
lows: 
"The committee would like to have accurately determined by meas- 
urement the exact position of the bilge pump hole on the port side of 
the yacht Defender, indicated in plan submitted, so as to show con- 
clusively the vertical distance of the lower rim of the hole from the 
racing waterline, two points of that line being shown at the lower 
edge of the red disk and of the mark on the stem. 
••These two marks were placed by the measurer when the yacht was 
in racing trim and on even keel. 
"Committee would also like to know the vertical drop of said hole, 
corresponding to 1°, 2° and 3° of list to port. 
"Also, would noticeable trimming by the head be produced by shift- 
ing thirty men— say two tons— from center of gravity to the men's 
berthing quarters? 
"N. B.— Note if red marks are of some standing. 
"A. T. Mahan." 
Mr. Hibbs reported in writing to Constructor Bowles, by whom the 
report was transmitted to the committee through Capt. Mahan, that 
the lower edge of the discharge hole was 2 13 32 m. below the l.w.l., thus 
confirming the accuracy v>f the previous measurements by Mr. De Luze 
and Mr. Hyslop. Mr. Hibbs followed a different method of measure- 
ment from that adopted by the others, for he ascertained the position 
of the bilge pump hole entirely by measurements starting from within 
the yacht herselt and not from the water. It follows, therefore, as a 
mathematical certainty, that upon an even keel, in the Erie Basin, this 
discharge hole would have been below the level of the water. 
By further experiments made at the same time, Mr. Hibbs also 
ascertained that: 
1. A weight of two tons moved from a position amidships through a 
distance of 13.75ft. athwartships would incline the Defender one 
degree, and would drop the discoarge hole 2J4in. 
2. That a weight of five tons similarly moved through lift, would 
incline her two degrees and would drop the discharge hole 4}^in. 
3. That a weight of ten tons similarly moved through a distance of 
7.25ft. would incline her three degrees and would drop the discharge 
hole6^in. 
4. A weight of two tons was moved from the center of gravity of 
