FOREST AND STREAM. 
Feb. 8, 1896. 
the water planejforward on the middle line to the horizontal 'position 
of the center of gravity of the crew's berthing quarters, a distance of 
32ft. 6in. The change of trim thereby occasioned on the waterline 
was as follows: 
Forward, 3}^in. down. 
Aft, 2in. up. 
Mr. Hibha further stated that he carefully examined the paint 
marks on the stem and side of the Defender, and that it was evident 
that they were of some standing. 
The proof showed that as the vessel lay in the Erie Basin just before 
the official measurement on Sept. 0 she had a slight list to starboard, 
probably occasioned by the movement of the crew to that side of the 
vessel before they were put in position amidships for that measure- 
ment. And it was further shown that the quarters of the crew were 
in the forecastle ; that their cots, bedding, etc., there were of the 
weight of about 401bs. to each man; that these cots, etc., were taken 
out before the race and transferred to the Hattie Palmer and returned 
to the Defender after the race, and that their presence on board at 
the time she was seen by Lord Dunraven and his witnesses early on 
the morning of the 7th, or the congregating of the crew forward for 
any reason, might have brought the vessel a little down by the head, 
as shown by the- experiments of Constructor Hibbs, and so have 
brought the bobstay bolt nearer the water. 
On the occasion of Lord Dunraven's coming alongside the Defender 
in his gig, there was a general and perfectly natural movement of 
nearly every one on board to that side of the yacht. 
If, as Lord Dunraven suspected, the Defender had entered upon the 
race of Sept. 7 with her racing line increased by the addition of ballast 
after the measurement of Sept. 6, she would have been violating the 
rules of the New York Y. C., under which the race was sailed, one of 
which is as follows: 
"If any yacht, by alteration of trim or immersion by dead weight, 
increase her l.w.l. length, or in any way increase her spar measure- 
ments as officially taken, she must obtain a remeasurement. 11 
This rule is specifically reproduced in the Bpecial agreement of Sept. 
4 governing the Cup races. 
Lord Dunraven did not make any written or other communication 
to the Cup committee or to Mr. Iselin on the subject of the increased 
immersion of the Defender, except that made to the committee 
through Mr. Fish. 
The rule of the New York Y. C. on the subject of protests for viola- 
tion of the rules of a race is as follows: 
"A yacht having cause during a race to protest against any other 
yacht for a violation of these rules shall display flag B of the club 
signal code, which shall be known as the protest flag, and keep such 
flag flying till answered from the judge's boat by the answering pen- 
nant. A protest must be supj)leinented by a written statement of the 
facts, which must be sent to the regatta committee before 6 P. M. of 
the day following the race." 
Lord Dunraven did not raise his flag, as required by this rule, nor 
make any protest at all against the Defender on that race. 
With reference to the suggestion of Lord Dunraven that the omis- 
sion of the Cup committee to remeasure the Defender on the same day 
of the race, or to put a representative on board of her to remain dur- 
ing the night, justified his suspicion that her displacement had been 
tampered with between the race and the remeasurement on the fol- 
lowing day. a few words should be said. 
It has already been pointed out that a remeasurement of the 
Defender after the race and on the same day was impossible, because 
the Erie Basin, where alone it could take place, was too far distant to 
be reached until too dark to make it, and that Lord Dunraven was so 
informed by Mr. Fish when the request was made. It was fully proved 
that such a measurement could not be made by artificial light. The 
remeasurement that took place on the next day (Sunday), at 10 
o'clock in the morning, was, therefore, the earliest possible. 
In regard to the request, which Lord Dunraven states that he made 
to Mr. Fish for transmission to the Cup committee, namely, that each 
of the two yachts should be taken into the charge of the committee 
for that night, it is conclusively shown that no such request reached 
the committee. 
Mr. Fish denies that any such request was included in the message 
with which he was charged. That he did not understand that it was 
included is shown by the fact that in delivering the message a few 
hours afterward, gravely impressed as he says with its importance, he 
made no mention to the committee of such a request. 
It further appears that a memorandum of the message sent was 
made by Mr. Fish in writing, which was produced and put in evidence, 
and contains no allusion to the request in question. Mr. Fish testifies 
that he made this memorandum in Lord Dunraven 's presence, because 
unwilling to trust his own memory, and in order to be assured that it 
should be accurately conveyed; that he read it over to Lord Dunraven, 
who suggested a correction, which was underlined; and that this 
memorandum contained the whole message as given to him, and as 
delivered by him. Lord Dunraven remembers that some memoran- 
dum was made by Mr. Fish at the time concerning this message, but 
does not recollect that he himself suggested any correction. But 
even upon his own recollection of the facts, the written memorandum 
seems strongly to confirm Mr. Fish's statement. 
It is testified by the Cup committee that the memorandum was de- 
livered to them by Mr. Fish as the message he had received, and it is 
clear that it was acted upon by them as such, and that the publication 
by Lord Dunraven in the Field was the first knowledge that committee 
had of any alleged request that they should take charge of the vessels 
pending remeasurement. It is also to be observed that Lord Dunraven 
in his letter to Mr. Kersey of Sept. 27 makes no mention of such re- 
quest, for all he sayB there is: "I don't know whether Fish ever told 
the committee I wished the ships measured immediately after the 
race." 
It was shown that the message from Lord Dunraven as to the in- 
creased immersion of the Defender, and the reason for his request for 
a remeasurement of the Defender, were not communicated to Mr. 
Iselin by Mr. Fish or by the Cup committee, and did not come to his 
knowledge till long afterward. 
It has not been suggested that the members of the Cup committee, 
or any of them, were or could have been parties to any tampering 
with the waterline of the Defender. The complaint of Lord Dunrav6n, 
made through Mr. Fish, was not stated in such terms as to suggest to 
them, in the absence of any definite request, that they ought to put a 
representative on board the Defender that night. This is apparent 
from Lord Dunraven's own statement of it in his publication in the 
Field. The committee have not been referred to any precedent for 
such action, nor to any rule of any yacht club in which such a remedy 
has been provided for. It necessarily implied distrust of all persona 
connected with the management of the Defender, and from their 
knowledge of these gentlemen it would doubtless never have occurred 
to the Cup committee unless specially demanded. 
But whether the Cup committee should of their own motion, upon 
the suggestion that was in fact conveyed to them by oral message 
from Lord Dunraven, have taken that step as a matter of precaution, 
becomes now in the present case totally immaterial to consider, be- 
cause, as has been shown, the evidence is conclusive that nothing did 
take place or under the circumstances could possibly have taken place 
on board the Defender that night tending to support the charge made 
by Lord Dunraven. A representative of the Cup committee, if he 
had been on board, could therefore have discovered nothing and pre- 
vented nothing. 
The only other circumstance that the committee deem it material to 
allude to is the omission by the Cup committee, until after the first 
race, to cause the l.w.l. length of the competing yachts to be marked 
externally on the vessels. 
This was indicated on both yachts by the measurer at the time of 
the official measurement by means of copper tacks placed in the 
decks, That these marks were accurate is not questioned. This 
method of marking the waterline length was in accordance with the 
uniform practice of the New York Y. C. 
At the last racB for the America's Cup, which took place in 1S93, and 
in which a yacht belonging to Lord Dunraven took part, the l.w.l. 
length was so marked, and without objection by him. 
On the present occasion the first request made by Lord Dunraven 
for an external marking was contained in a note dated Sept. 5, 1895, 
the very day upon which the boats were to be measured, addressed to 
Mr. Canfield, the secretary of the Cup committee. That committee 
without delay convened a meeting and acted favorably upon the re- 
quest, provided Mr. Iselin consented, his consent being necessary to 
any modification of the terms of the agreement. He at once assented, 
and within a few hours after the receipt of Lord Dunraven's request 
the committee had sent a sub-committee to the Erie Basin, where the 
boats were to be measured, to see that they were marked externally 
as requested by Lord Dunraven. 
But the Valkyrie had already been measured and had left the basin, 
and could not return on account of the tide. It was therefore 
arranged that the marking should take place on Sept. 8, the day fol- 
lowing the first race. And the measurer was ordered to preserve the 
batten used >n the first measurement, and to take steps to make sure 
that the yachts should be at the same point of immersion. 
It' is apparent, therefore, that the reason why the external marking 
was not made until after the first race had been sailed was because 
Lord Dunraven was so late in hie request for a method of marking 
not customary and not provided for in the agreement for the race 
that it was impossible that it should be had any sooner. 
Lord Dunraven must be in error in bis recollection that in his con- 
versation with Mr. Fish be demanded and as a result secured the ex- 
ternal marking of the boats. And the suggestion that Lord Dunraven 
had repeatedly asked to have the vessels marked externally before the 
first, race is not sustained by any evidence. 
It is very much to be regretted that, if Lord Dunraven's suspicions 
were not dispelled at the time of the remeasurement of the Defender 
on Sept. 8, he did not say so then, instead of accepting in silence the 
result which verified the previous measurement. ^.The remeasurement 
was the committee's response to the communication which they had 
received through Mr. Fish. In connection with their knowledge of the 
circumstances, which made it impossible that the imputed fraud could 
have been perpetrated without Mr. Iselin's concurrence, and their 
knowledge of Mr. Iselin, it satisfied them; and, as we have seen, it 
justly satisfied them. 
To all appearance it satisfied Lord Dunraven. He was present at 
the remeasurement and met there the members of the committee and 
Mr. Iselin. He made no request for further action. He made no ob- 
jection to proceeding without further action. He made no inquiry as 
to how or how fully his oral message through Mr. Fish had been de- 
livered, and no suggestion that any request which he supposed to have 
been contained in that message had not been complied with. 
He sailed the next race in the series that had been agreed on with- 
out protest or objection on account of the change which he had told 
Mr. Fish he believed to have been made in the load waterline of the 
Defender before the first race. And he testified that his belief that 
such a change had occurred did not influence him in his final with- 
drawal from the match at the third race. The Cup committee seems 
to have been warranted in supposing that Lord Dunraven's suspicions 
were allayed, and that no further steps were necessary to settle any 
question Of fact or to vindicate any one's reputation. 
Upon careful consideration o£ the whole case, the committee are 
unanimously of the opinion that the charge made by Lord Dunraven, 
and which has been the subject of this investigation, had its origin in 
mistake; that it is not only not sustained by evidence, but is com- 
pletely disproved; and that all the circumstances indicated by him as 
giving rise to his suspicion are entirely and satisfactorily explained. 
They deem it, therefore, but just to Mr. Iselin and the gentlemen con- 
cerned with him, as well as to the officers and crew of ihe Defender, 
that the committee should express emphatically their conviction that 
nothing whatever occurred in connection with the race in question 
that easts the least suspicion upon the integrity or propriety of their 
conduct. 
And the committee are not willing to doubt that if Lord Dunraven 
had remained present throughout the investigation, so as to have 
heard all the evidence that was introduced, he would of his own 
motion have withdrawn a charge that was so plainly founded upon 
mistake, and that has been so unfortunate in the publicity it has at- 
tained, and the feeling to which it has given rise. 
The committee append a full stenographic report, revised by the 
counsel on both sides, of all the evidence laid before them, and of all 
the proceedings on the hearing, and likewise copies of all the docu- 
ments and papers introduced on either side, as considered by the com- 
mittee. 
And they ask to be discharged from further consideration of the 
subject referred to them. 
Tne committee cannot take leave of the case without expressing 
their regret that a part of the evidence now annexed should have been 
surreptitiously obtained by a New York newspaper owned by one of 
the oldest members of the club, and published with comments very 
adverse to one of the parties on the morning of Jan. 20. They had 
deemed it important under the peculiarly delicate circumstances of 
this case, and the interest it had excited both in England and the 
United States, that no part of their proceedings should be laid before 
the public, or become the subject of discussion, until the whole evi- 
dence and their conclusions upon it could be made known in both 
countries. Their request to this effect was so obvious in its propriety 
that it was most honorably observed by all the many persons who had 
access, in a greater or less degree, to the proceedings of the commit- 
tee. It was, therefore, in spite of the committee's efforts, in opposi- 
tion to their well-understood wishes, and in disregard of the best 
interests of the yacht club, that this premature and imperfect publi- 
cation was made. E. J. Phelps, 
J. Pierpont Morgan, 
W. C. Whitney, 
A, T. Mahan, 
Jan. 21, 1896. G. L. Rives. 
During the reading of the report Mr, Morgan was interrupted by 
applause. At its conclusion ex-Com. James D. Smith moved that it 
be accepted and the committee discharged with thanks, the motion 
being unanimously carried. 
Mr. Lewis Cass Ledyard then moved that the consideration of the 
committee's report and of the matters referred to therein be post- 
poned until the next general meeting of the club. Feb. 13, and that in 
the meantime copies of the report and the evidence be sent to each 
member of the club. This was also carried unanimously and the 
meeting adjourned 
The full report of the committee, a pamphlet of nearly 600 pages, 
and which, it is understood, was distributed in London at the same 
time as in New York, contains, with the evidence taken by the com- 
mittee, the following report made to it by the America's Cup commit- 
tee on Dec. 14 and now published for the first time: 
To Messrs. J. Pierpont Morgan, William C. Whitney and George L. 
Rives, a committee appointed at a special meeting of theN. Y. 
Y. C-, held Nov. 18, in reference to certain published statements 
by the Earl of Dunraven, regarding the late match for the Amer- 
ica's Cup: 
Gentlemen— In pursuance of the intimation conveyed in your letter 
of Nov. 22, 1895, that your committee would be alad to receive any 
statement which the members of the America's Cup committee de- 
sired to make, we propose to submit herewith a somewhat detailed 
review of the events involved and to consider the character of the 
charges made by Lord Dunraven against the yacht Defender, his 
evidence, Mb procedure and the action taken by the committee in the 
more important circumstances of the contest. 
It is proper to state at the outset that the responsibility for the 
course pursued falls on the committee solely, as those in control of 
Defender were not informed of the charges made against their vessei. 
(I.) As to marking the yachts. 
In his published statement Lord Dunraven seems to imply that his 
request that the yachts be marked on the outside at the ends of the 
l.w.l., was made prior to the signing of the agreement of terms, and 
that the committee neglected to take action in the matter until after 
the first race and only as a result of his charge against Defender. 
Such an implication is a misrepresentation of the facts, which are as 
follows: 
On Aug. 30 Lord Dunraven met the committee to discuss the condi- 
tions of the race. He then suggested marking the yachts at the 
water level. The committee replied that this was not the custom of 
the club, and Lord Dunraven waived the point. A draft of the condi- 
tions, with some few alterations, was prepared by the secretary and 
was submitted to Lord Dunraven and signed by him on Sept. 4 (not 
Sept. 6, as he now says). After the meeting on Aug. 30 Lord Dunra- 
ven did not recur to the subject until his letter dated Sept. 6 (not 5) 
asking that the yachts be marked on the outside at the l.w.l, On this 
day, Sept. 6, the yachts had agreed to be at the Erie Basin for meas- 
urement. Upon receipt of this request two of the committee pro- 
ceeded to the Erie Basin in order to arrange, if possible, that the 
yachts should be marked that day. 
It was found that Valkyrie had been measured and taken out of the 
Basin, and that it would be impossible for her, on account of the tide, 
to return and be marked that day. It was therefore arranged with 
Lord Dunraven and Mr. Iselin that the yachts should be marked, as 
the former requested, on the morning of the day following the first 
race, and that the representatives from each side should be present. 
As Mr. Watson had undertaken to affix the marks, the measurer was 
instructed in his presence to preserve the marked batten used to locate 
the ends of the l.w.l., as measured from the end of the overhang, to 
apply the same when the marks were affixed, and thus insure that the 
l.w.l. was the same as when first measured on Sept. 6. 
(II.) As to the complaint made by Lord Dunraven during the 
match that Defender exceeded her measured l.w.l. during the first 
race: 
(a) The facts in the matter are as follows: 
Prior to the start, on Sept. 7, the day of the first race, Lord Dun- 
raven stated to Mr. Latham A. Fish, a member of the committee and 
the representative of the N. Y. Y. C. that day on Valkyrie, that he, 
Lord Dunraven, and some four or five others whom he named, were 
conOdent from their own observation that Defender was 3 or 4in. 
deeper in the water than when measured the previous day. He stated 
that he believed this alteration had been made without the knowledge 
of the owners of Defender, but it must be corrected or he would dis- 
continue racing. 
He said he did not wish to say to the committee what action they 
should take, but he desired a remeasurement that day, after the race. 
Mr. Fish remarked to Lord Dunraven that, in iris opinion, it would 
be too dark after the race to remeasure that day. 
The first intimation that the committee received of this conversation 
was when, in response to a hail from Valkvrie, Mr. Fish was taken on 
board the committee boat shortly after 6 P. M. Mr. Fish immediately 
reported to the committee. Owingto the lateness of the hour it was 
a physical impossibility to take Defender to a proper place and re- 
measure her thst day. The committee took steps to insure that a re- 
measurement the next day, in connection with the marking, should be 
thoroughly done. This remeasurement showed less than J£in. differ- 
ence in the l.w.l. length of Defender as compared with Friday's figures. 
And thus the matter ended. 
It is proper to note here that Lord Dunraven is in error in asserting 
that he asked or suggested that a watch be placed on both vessels 
until measured. 
We do not make this denial as a defense of the committee's action 
0 r aB implying that such a request or suggestion would have been fol- 
lowed^ 
123 
As will appear from what follows, the committee decided upon a 
course of action which did not involve proving or disproving Lord 
Dunraven's implication of fraud. 
As bearing somewhat on the case, it is only fair to Mr. Fish to say 
that he was In no wav acting as a member of the committee that day 
on Valkyrie, but merely as the representative of the N. Y. Y. C, to 
see fair play during the race, and his only function in this matter was 
that of a trustworthy messenger. 
(b) As to the nature and gravity of the charge made by Lord Dun- 
raven against the yacht Defender: 
Lord Dunraven's complaint contained an assertion that his adver- 
sary exceeded her measured l.w.l., and a call for remeasurement, If 
it went no further than this, it was completely satisfied by the re- 
measurement made at the earliest opportunity. If it went further, 
then it was a charge of fraudulent violation of the rules by the yacht 
Defender, and the owuers were directly responsible. A plea that by 
their neglect the fraud had been committed without their knowledge 
would have been puerile. Any attempt to treat such a charge infor- 
mally, or to evade the gravity of the accusation, was and is futile. 
With no knowledge as to what supervision had been exercised by Mr. 
Iselin, Lord Dunraven expressed to Mr. Fish his belief that the owners 
of Defender were in ignorance of the alleged alteration, and he know 
says: 
I told * * * him (Mr. Fish) I thought some mistake had been 
made and that all the weight put into Defender after measurement 
had not benn taken out. 
Did Lord Dunraven seriously think he could relieve the owners of 
the burden of his charge, or that a matter of at least 20,0001bs. of 
weight might have been left in Dafender by "mistake" when removing 
such weights as had been put in after measurement, and that a watch 
should be set to prevent this "mistake" from being corrected before 
remeasurement? 
(c) As to the evidence on which the charge was based: 
Lord Dunraven based his charge on his observation of the bobstay, 
a pipe hole amidships, and the line of the bronze plating. He further 
cites that Defender was 6in. longer than when measured for theGoelet 
Cup race, and that men were working on the Defender until 1 A. M. 
on the night of Sept. 6. These last two points seem to us, as matters 
of evidence, about equally devoid of importance. 
The bobstay, as Lord Dunraven admits, would be of little value as a 
guide, unless the position of the crew, sails, etc., were the same as 
during measurement. The pipe hole "amidships," his other mark, 
awash when seen in the basin during measurement, would be im- 
mersed by a list of less than 2° in a vessel of Defender's beam at the 
l.w.l. 
On these grounds Lord Dunraven unhesitatingly attacks the good 
name and faith of every man on Defender during the nights of Sept. 6 
and 7, and the owners of the vessel as well, whatever he may be 
pleased to say to the contrary. 
In vessels of the outline of Defender, the l.w.l. leDgth increases 
about 7in. for each inch of immersion. Perfectly still water is neces- 
sary to locate the end of the l.w 1. when measuring, and the slightest 
disturbance of the surface is certain to produce the illusion that the 
l.w.l. is longer and the vessel more deeply immersed; it seems prob- 
able that Lord Dunraven and his friends were suffering from such an 
illusion. 
The complaint made to Mr. Fish was of an increased immersion of 
3 or 4in. This would involve the transference of 20,000 to 80,0001ns. of 
ballast. In bis public statement Lord Dunraven claims that Defender's 
l.w.l, was about 1ft. longer; this would correspond to an increased im- 
mersion of less than 2in. 
It is not our province to reconcile these statements; we can only say 
that, in our opionion, it would be hardly possible in open water to 
recognize an increase of 1ft. in the l.w.l. length, or of less than 2in. in 
the immersion, of a vessel of Offender's outline. 
(d) As to the course of action adopted by Lord Dunraven in the 
matter. 
In explanation of his course of action, Lord Dunraven now says in 
his published statement; 
"I was reluctant to make a formal complaint to the Cup committee 
on a matter which it was of course impossible for me to verify; in any 
case nothing could be done before the race was started." 
A charge of such gravity admitted of no alternative. If made at all 
it demanded imperatively a formal complaint. 
"Nothing could be done before the race was started." 
Before the start on Sept. 7 Lord Dunraven asserted to Mr. Fish that 
a condition of the contest had been violated. He had ample oppor- 
tunity between the time he made hi3 alleged discovery and the start of 
the first race to formally signal bis protest anil announce his refusal to 
race an opponent whom he suspected of fraud, until an investigation 
of the accusation and evidence had been made. 
In this way a remeasurement could have been secured that day and 
the charge verified, if true. 
(e) As to the course of action and the position taken by the com- 
mittee. 
When Mr. Fish reported to the committee it was too late to remeas- 
ure Defender that day. Lord Dunraven asserts that the remeasure- 
ment the next day proved nothing, and intimates that it was the duty 
of the committee to place a watch on Defender until measured in 
order to prevent the perpetration of a new fraud which would con- 
ceal the previous one. 
As between Lord Dunraven and us the question is: Was this the 
duty of the committee under the circumstances? 
Leaving aside, all question of the power of any committee to take 
such action or of this committee, under the powers delegated to it, 
we reply that such action was not incumbent on the committee, and 
for the following reasons: 
First— The charge was of a disgraceful and shameful action, and in 
order to receive attention it demanded to be presented in an unquali- 
fiedly formal manner. 
As a matter of fact it was made in an informal verbal message, un- 
accompanied by protest or signed statement of any kind, and was 
coupled with inadmissible pleas advanced by the accuser to the effect 
that the owners were probably ignorant of the alteration and that it 
was due to mistake. 
Second— As a basis for treating Defender as an accused criminal, 
the charge was founded on most illusory and insufficient facts. 
Third— The accuser neglected his opportunity to protest before the 
race and so secure a remeasurement that day, and in view of such 
neglect the onus of taking up the charge of fraud did not rest on the 
committee, and, a fortiori, they were not biund to have recourse 
to methods unprecedented in the history of American yacht racing. 
The charge involved the transference of 20,000 to 30,0001bs. of weight 
and the connivance of the whole crew of the American yacht and her 
tender, and was considered by the committee absurd and preposter- 
ous. 
The committee decided to treat the complaint simply as a call for 
remeasurement, and to disregard all imputations of fraud, and by so 
doing to force upon the accuser the issue either to support his charge 
and protest against his treatment by the committee, or to drop the 
subject and go on with the match. 
We maintain that the circumstances justified such a treatment of 
the matter by the committee. 
Lord Dunraven did go on with the match until a further grievance 
induced his withdrawal, and he made no further reference to the sub- 
ject in his dealings with the committee. 
We maintain that the committee were entitled to regard his action 
in continuing the contest after his complaint, and especially after his 
threat of withdrawal, as tantamount to a withdrawal of his charges, 
and an acknowledgment that he no longer had grounds of complaint, 
and that he was also in honor bound to so regard it. 
If this is so, the statement in the Field of Nov. 9 that Defender 
sailed the first race immersed below her measured l.w.l., must, in 
justice to Lord Dunraven, be considered, not as a recurrence of his 
former complaint, but as a new accusation, and must, in justice to the 
owners of Defender, be treated as such. 
Some surprise has been expressed at the equanimity with which the 
committee's report to the N. Y. Y. C. was received, as compared with 
the indignation aroused by Lord Dunraven's published statement. 
The difference of feeling seem3 to us perfectly rational. 
By the report it appeared that a charge of fraud bad been made or 
implied by the challenger, which by his continuation of the contest he 
subsequently withdrew or abandoned. 
Iu his published statement Lord Dunraven asserts: That Defender 
exceeded her measured l.w.l. in the first race, and criticises the meas- 
ures adopted by the committee as ineffective, thereby implying that 
Defender, by means of the opportunity afforded, was restored to her 
original length before the remeasurement. 
(HI.) As to Lord Dunraven's complaint that the committee would 
not postpone the last race in order to consider his suggestions for 
avoiding an overcrowned course. 
After sailing two races, Lord Dunraven informed the committee that 
he considered the circumstances unsuitable for yacht racing, and 
would race no more until a remedy was fonnd. 
Strenuous efforts were made to control the accompanying vessels. 
These efforts gave every promise of success on the morning of the 
third race, when a part of his grievance was removed by securing a 
clear start. 
Lord Dunraven's proposed conditions as to changiug the course or 
not announcing the dates and times of racing the committee did not 
think possible to grant. 
It seemed to them time to end the matter. It seemed to them useless 
and undignified to delay the start for further parley with a chal- 
lenger who la the middle of a oontest had seen fit to advance new 
conditions in the form of an ultimatum under a threat of with- 
drawal. 
(TV.) Aa to Lord Dunraven's withdrawal from the match, 
