£16 
FORSsf f AND §THEAk. 
- c- — : 
amounted to something Hkg §eVenty-five dollars' worth 
Middleton was the first man at the store that morn- 
ing himself, and he hadn't mote it got inside till lie saw 
what was wrong. So he came out oh the pavement 
an' told it. 
Of course there wasn't much else done that forenoon 
but talk over the robbery, an' everybody that couldn't 
get into the store set on the hitchin' rack an' discussed 
the best ways to find the thief. 
Finally Rube Jones, the fire insurance agent that 
' came here about a year ago, you recollect, stepped in, 
sort o' finified, with his patent leather,_ toothpick shoes, 
■ an' saj's he, "Have you looked for tracks?" 
There'd been a little shower in the night that laid 
the dust considerable, an' soon as he spoke Middleton 
i (like a drownin' man catchin' at a straw) went out the 
i back door. An' there, sure enough, was great big, 
ibroad-soled tracks, plain as day. 
Yes, you're right, they followed 'era, an' they led 
straight as a string to Lon Davis' house over in the 
edge o' town. 
Well, that settled it, the shoes was like Lon's, an' 
he'd always been shiftless an' ornery; in jail once, you 
jknow, tor stealin' meat, though I'll always believe Lon 
wouldn't V stole if he hadn't been Hungry. So they 
took him up an' searched the house, but they couldn't 
get any trace of the goods. 
It would have broke your heart to see Lon's wife an 5 
the children cry an' cling to him, when the sheriff led 
him away. Poor things! he wasn't worthless an' triflin' 
to them. 
Somehow or other Joe Borden hadn't thought of his 
bloodhound 'til they couldn't find the stuff that was 
missing, an' Jim Brady began to twit him of it. 
You see, Jim sets up for a detective, an' he's always 
been kind o' jealous of the dog. 
Joe got the pup right off after that, an' took him up 
to the store, an' they do say the little thing acted real 
intelligent. Anyway he smelled round a bit and took 
along the trail o' them tracks to Lon Davis', givin' 
tongue every two or three jumps, with all the men in 
/own spurtin' their best to keep up. 
When he got there he run over Lon's little grass plat 
: aw hile, as if he was confused. Then he started again, 
•fast er than ever, an' never stopped until he came up to 
Rubs - Jones' insurance office. And there it was they 
found" the stolen goods. Even the old shoes, like Lon's, 
was £o. un d iu a valise stuck away up in the scuttle hole. 
Well J oe bad a " be could do to keen the dog off o' 
TRube- an'' Rube squirmed more like a cornered garter 
(snake tha. n anything else I ever saw, when they ar- 
irested him. * .. , , 
But vou'd c^usht to see Lon Davis kids pet that dog, 
:an' as "for Jot'- don't ever ask him about it, for he 
«:an't talk of atiL lther thing but that hound pup. 
plan is just one more ijndteation of the direction in which 
all yachting is trending. 
Points and Flushes* 
Notica has been sent out by the secretary of the A. 
C, to the club delegates giving notice that the 
re pnlar quarterly meeting of the club will be held m 
the A. K. C office, 55 Liberty street on Sept. 22, at 2 
o'c\ tck P. M. Also at 4 o'clock P. M. the committee 
on r Membership will meet for the purpose of receiving 
and i icAing o n applications tor admission to member- 
ship aiod for approving the credentials of delegates 
whose names will be submitted to the club at its meet- 
ing the foSiowh ig da y- 
Mr Gt 'o. W Clayton, Box 914, Chicago, 111, will su- 
r,e rniend the fir st annual show of the Texas Kennel 
Club To b e Lid ^ Dallas, Texas, by the Texas State 
Uub, to b e J]e| a Exposition Association, Oct. 4 to 8. 
Fair and l^allas i ^pos ^ Clayton's 
Entries close Sept. ,, iy - „ f t L ,. CAr : lt : nn 9 nre . 
address will be Da. ^ fenS ut^hat at 
f nff - r-i yton further mtorms us tnat ar- 
mentioned Mr, Ch \ d {or ^ free transportation 
rangements have beer Chicago, S t. Louis and Kansas 
of all dogs collected a «? ' „ 
City, so this, should ins ure a blg entry " 
ichting* 
TH£ yac 
htsme 
w 
1 * As*. erica > the Forest AND Stream is 
As theyScMng journal unicat ion between the maker of 
the recognized! Hie :dium of ting pv foii c . its value for ad- 
yachtsmew's smppl tes and the y patrons who have employed 
vertising lhas been aemonstrateai 
its caLumff* smtin uously for yeairs. ^ 
. rivde ^iter ample experience 
n of the Clyde.. ^ {or & ^ 
ith the fin-kee. I, are busy^ a return to the use _ 
stricted class of 4JJj £-*r * Th y ac htsman says: 
able craft of ten 3 ^eais back. 
* k -A -has vet been done aboStthe new class of 
Nothing defin* -^S^f^h mtic h has already been 
A2-footers for the Clyde, ? ™ott|W ™ d ; nc i n the matter. 
Schly settled % ^tAg ^^^ 1 ^ ^ 
The bandbox ^ ; * tabooed , and the boats 
accomtnodatupm * ^-footers, not any less, 
aV \ t0 nd ouTter t tot both owners and crews, and with 
with good q^a™? . Wied ladies' cabins. It the 
lieatly fitted ^ fof about £700 each ($3,500) there is 
boats can be g;- 10 ' m be proC eeded with; 
eV Vtl T o twer to n five owners are in such hearty sym- 
in f the movement that they are expected to 
pathy with the t q{ whQle matter t be 
h u „ , well cScuUed to make for the good of ¥ mht» 
the one wel c ^ to t to secure a good and smart 
! ng ,t i e» Ale but not mean figure, for such 
boat, at a reasou* ff d to ma i nta i n an expensive 
yaC , ll T. e rwise aSS useless machine, and a steam yacht 
and otherwise a^c^ ■ bg wdl {of ^ h ^ interegtg 
of tfe s P o?t that the^ , 5 hould_be successful. 
This proposed class wodld probably run to about 38ft. 
Iwl or, allowing for the fuller L.W L. and the added 
overhangs of the more moderate of the modern type, 
ft wouM make a boat about as large as Minerva The 
del is similar to that suggested last year for a larger 
size by the Newport owners of the 30ft. class. The 
Yacht Measurement 
The writer of the following, Mr. R. E. Froude, of 
the Haslar Experimental Laboratory of the British 
Admiralty, has been very closely connected with meas- 
urement discussion and legislation in England, and is 
an expert on the subject of measurement: 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
J am much obliged to you for sending me your issue 
of July 9, containing an editorial article on "Girth as a 
Factor of Measurement" With your reasoning in this 
article — on your statement — I concur in the main; but 
you do not appear to correctly appreciate the purpose 
with which the girth measurement was introduced into 
this country. 
You premise "that the direct end in view is the in- 
ducement of the designer to take a larger area oi mid- 
ship section, at the same time leaving him free as to the 
proportions and form of this area." Without professing 
to answer for the motives of every individual concerned 
in the introduction of the girth measurement of our 
present rule, I think it may safely be said that the 
general end in view was not what you describe in the 
above words, but was in one sense at least its precise 
converse. 
The end in view was expressly not to leave the design- 
er free as to the form of the midship section; but rather 
to induce him to take a more compact form; to take a 
larger area maybe, but expressly a larger area relatively 
to the extreme cross section dimensions. And this 
end is directly promoted by the introduction of girth 
tax (coupled with beam tax, to which you make no 
reference), in- complete or partial substitution for sail 
tax. 
Qua effect on hull design, a sail tax is broadly equiva- 
lent to a tax simply on sail-carrying power, without dis- 
tinction as to the means whereby that sail-carrying power 
is achieved. Now sail-carrying power, as your argu- 
ment implies, is the product of two factors, weight and 
leverage; so that a given sail-carrying power may be 
achieved by a small weight and large leverage, or a 
large weight and small leverage, or any intermediate 
combination. And the tax on sail has been found to 
promote recourse to the former alternative in a very 
undesirable degree. 
Manifestly, then, the natural and most direct correc- 
tive of this evil is to replace, wholly or partially, the 
tax on sail-carrying power achieved (as conventionally 
measured by actual sail spread), by a tax on the lever- 
age factor which helps to achieve it; this leverage 
factor being conventionally measured by the extreme 
cross section dimensions, of which girth may be taken 
as one. 
This, then, is the true raison d'etre of the girth ele- 
ment in the present English rule. It was introduced, in 
addition to a tax on beam, primarily to stop the un- 
limited recourse to draft, which a beam tax alone would 
have encouraged. Girth was chosen for this purpose, in 
preference to draft, partly for convenience, but also, and 
rather as an afterthought, for the sake of the direct 
encouragement of a compact type of section, which is 
afforded by the girth measurement taken along the 
curve of the sectional outline. 
It has been above contended that the substitution of 
a leverage tax for a sail (or sail-carrying power) tax is 
the natural and most direct cure for the tendency of 
the latter to promote undue recourse to. leverage instead 
of weight. It is instructive to notice that similar rea- 
soning would lead us to expect much the same result 
(so far as hull design goes) from an increase of sail tax, 
accompanied by a premium on the weight factor, as 
measured either by displacement or sectional area. 
Hence I conclude — speaking quite broadly and gen- 
erally — that, subject to the adjustment of coefficients, 
there is no reason why formulas such as proposed by 
Mr. Hyslop and Mr. Herreshoff should not have much 
the same practical effect on hull design, either as the 
present Y. R. A. rule, or the intensification of it lately 
proposed, wherein the sail tax was discarded entirely in 
favor of an increased B. and G. tax. 
This reasoning of course applies only to boats with 
fixed keels: as regards centerboards, the hull effect of 
the two kinds of rules here contrasted would, of course, 
be very different. But setting this on one side, the 
chief essential difference in practical effect would lie 
merely in the matter of canvasing, i. e., relatively to 
stiffness. That is to say, the Herreshoff or Hyslop type 
of rule would strongly promote under-canvasing, while 
the Y. R. A. rule or its intensification would do so to a 
less extent or not at all. 
Whether the promotion of under-canvasing is to be 
regarded as a boon or the reverse is, I suppose, mainly 
a matter of taste. But, as a matter of principle, I wish 
to lay stress on what seems to me an almost fatal ob- 
jection to any form of rule which, like the Hyslop and 
Herreshoff rules, puts a direct premium on any meas- 
ured element of size. The primary and legitimate func- 
tion of any rating rule is to measure size, in order to 
eliminate the element of mere "size" from the com- 
petition. When, therefore, a rule directly provides that 
by increase of some measured dimension the rating 
for racing is decreased, such rule clearly contradicts 
this primary and legitimate function, and avowedly be- 
comes a mere engine for the control of design. 
Every practicable rating rule must indeed operate jn 
some measure to control design, whether we wish it or 
no; and when a rule Si found to do so prejudicially, It 
i.s quite legitimate to so readjust the incidence of the 
taxations as that it may so far as possible control de- 
sign advantageously instead of the reverse. But to do 
this in such a way as tp patently subvert it§ primary 
function of size measurement is, in principle at any 
rate, to take a distinctly new departure. 
Gosport, Aug. 9- 
We are so nearly in accord with Mr. Froude on many 
points, and in fact with some other of our correspon- 
dents in this discussion, that it is difficult to argue against 
them. In this case, where Mr. Froude differs from us 
[Sept. 10, 1898. 
it is not in fflattefs of prfndple, but rather in minor de- 
tails, which depend largely on very clear and accurate 
Wording. 
It is possible that in the sentence first quoted by 
Mr. Froude we have failed to cover in a few words a 
statement that is capable of considerable amplification. 
We quite understand that in framing the present Y, R. 
A. rule it was intended to limit the designer to a certain 
extent in the use of extreme forms of section, such as the 
fin-keel or the Glencairn type; but, on the other hand, we 
have not understood that it was the intention to force 
him to the other extreme of one stereotyped section. 
It was, as Mr. Froude states, intended to promote "a 
larger area relatively to the extreme cross section di- 
mensions;" but even in doing this we do not understand 
that there was any intention of restricting the designer 
more than was absolutely necessary in his choice of pro- 
portions and dimensions. 
Our criticism, although expressly directed at girth as 
used in the British rule, was written entirely from an 
American standpoint, and from that standpoint we be- 
lieve that our statement is correct. The range of types, 
in current use in this country is very much larger than in 
Great Britain, and the centerboard type claims a promi- 
nence here which it does not on the other side. It is 
impossible that any yachting body in this country should 
follow the course of the British Y. R. A. in absolutely 
•excluding all centerboard types. In order to be accepted 
here, a new rule must do all that Mr. Froude claims, and 
in addition must leave the designer the greatest possible 
freedom in the selection between the centerboard and 
keel types. It must penalize the fin-keel and the big 
Glencairn, but it must leave it possible (to take an in- 
stance from well-known boats) for a Nymph of the 
moderate centerboard type to compete fairly against a 
Minerva of the normal keel type. 
The point which we made is that the use of girth and 
beam, as in the Y. R. A. rule, tends to produce a certain 
fixed form of section; for instance that, applied to the 
class of the two boats just quoted, it offers strong in- 
ducement to the designer to take a beam of about 10ft. 
and a draft of about 9ft., and discourages him from such 
dimensions as 14ft. beam and 6ft. draft. The latter repre- 
sent the moderate type of deep centerboard boat, one 
whose value in American waters has been proved beyond 
question. While as a mere matter of private opinion, we 
do not believe that the latter as represented by Nymph and 
Harpoon can win races from the former as represent- 
ed by Minerva and Gloriana, at the same time we believe 
that an American rule should go as far as possible 
toward giving an equal opportunity to each type. 
The question which Mr. Froude raises over the taxa- 
tion of sail is a very nice one, but perhaps of more 
importance in theory than practice. We are again con- 
fronted on this side with peculiar conditions. The ten- 
dency in America has always been in the direction of. 
overcanvasing, a matter of habit and tradition perhaps, 
but none the less strong on that account. W» quite agree 
that a most effectual remedy for overcanvasing may be 
had by means of limitation; but it seems to us that the 
conditions on this side are such as to make the other 
method of a tax on sail itself more practicable. The 
principle of taxing sail is now well understood and al- 
most universally accepted in America, but the principle 
of taxing the levers— beam and draft— is as yet un- 
known. In securing any general recognition of the 
latter principle, as contemplated in Mr. Hyslop's pro- 
posal, it is probable that much more can be accom- 
plished by means of a moderate tax on dimensions, 
coupled with the existing tax on sail, than by entirely 
discarding the latter and working for what must seem 
to be very severe restrictions on beam and draft alone. 
The former stands a chance of being understood and ac- 
cepted, where the latter would probably be rejected. 
We are quite willing to accept Mr. Froude's conclu- 
sion, that the general result of all the rules under dis- 
cussion will be the same; but from an American point 
of view it is impossible to set aside the centerboard 
type. We do not believe, however, that the Hyslop pro- 
posal, which is very different in principle, would pro- 
mote undercanvasmg, or that it would do more in this 
direction than to check the development of excessive 
sail plans. In discussing "undercanvasing," as Mr. 
Froude puts it, a great deal depends on the point of view: 
what would be considered a very moderate rig in Amer- 
ica would be looked on in England as excessively 
large. 
The final point, whether a rule of the Herreshoff type, 
with displacement or an equivalent factor as a divisor, 
is admissible on principle as a measurement of "size," is 
new to us, and we are not prepared to discuss it at 
present, as it pertains to the domain of theory, and 
there are numerous other matters of practical value to be 
dealt with just now if anything is to be done within 
the next two months. It may really be an interesting 
departure in the principles of measurement, but even 
so it may be left until it is decided whether the Hyslop 
formula offers sufficient promise of success in practice- 
to warrant its trial. We regret that Mr. Froude has not 
touched upon the specific points that we urged against 
girth as an inducement to a greater area of section; and • 
that he has not undertaken to discuss the principle of 
Mr. Hyslop's formula in comparison with the formulas 
proposed by Mr. Herreshoff and others. 
The Y, R t A« and the America Cap. 
At the meeting of the British Y. R. A. at Ryde on 
Aug, 13 the following letter was framed, in answer 
to ihe application of the Royal Ulster Y. C: 
Yacht Racing Association, Royal Victoria Y. C, Ryde, 
Isle of Wight, Aug. 13.— Proposed Challenge for the 
America Cup. — Sir: I have laid your letter of the a$th 
ult, before the Council at their meeting to-day, and the 
committee appointed by your club attended and' explained 
the reasons for inviting the assistance of the Yacht: 
Racing Association-. The Council fully appreciate the 
courtesy of your club, but as the Yacht Racing Asso- 
ciation have no jurisdiction in international racing, the 
Council decline to express an opinion on the proposed 
challenge. 
Your obedient servant, 
Secretary, Yacht Racing Association. 
To the secretary, Royal Ulster Y. C, Bangor, Ireland, 
