944 
FOREST AND STREAM 
[Dec. 12, 1908. 
The War Eagle—1904. 
Paper read by Vice-President Charles H. Cramp, at 
meeting of the Society of Naval Architects and 
Marine Engineers. 
Chesapeake Bay in about the first half of the 
last century was noted as the home of two 
classes of vessels known over the entire world 
as the “Baltimore clipper,” and the “pungy,” 
as it was called in the shipyards of Philadel¬ 
phia and Baltimore. 
Whether the “pungy” was a development of 
the “clipper” or that the “clipper” was a de¬ 
velopment of the “pungy” I have never been 
able to find out, but I believe that the develop¬ 
ment of each was coincident, and that they are 
the outgrowth of the necessities of the period—- 
each in its own class represented the principle 
of the survival of the fittest. 
My great-uncles and my father claimed that 
these types antedated their time. The great 
bulk of the business of the Chesapeake and its 
surroundings demanding a quick delivery of 
their products, being principally oysters, early 
fruits, and farm products, stimulated the con¬ 
struction of fast vessels, large and small. And 
there is no doubt that the necessities of the 
slave trade contributed much to the develop¬ 
ment of this type. All of the slavers were 
“pungies,” but were not called so. 
There is no doubt that the different wars that 
involved all Europe in the last decade of the 
eighteenth century, consequent upon the French 
Revolution and the wars of Bonaparte, aided 
in the development of the “Baltimore clipper.” 
Commerce of Europe on the Atlantic and 
Pacific was much embarrassed and almost de¬ 
stroyed by the frequent, war-like convulsions 
and contentions that prevailed, and the navies 
of their countries, being nearer home, afforded 
but little or no protection to what few vessels 
there were engaged in legitimate trade, and in 
view of the high price of the goods of com¬ 
merce, particularly of the Indies, these oceans 
became filled with smugglers, Malay and other 
pirates, and privateers, principally French and 
American, carrying the flags of all nations. 
High prices were much augmented by the 
Berlin and Milan Decrees of Bonaparte, and 
additional stimulus was given to adventurers on 
the ocean. Americans at that time were par¬ 
ticularly adventurers, and the conditions of 
trade involving excitement and profit, occupied 
the principal attention of the maritime portion 
of our country from Baltimore north. 
Merchant vessels generally went armed and 
somewhat under military discipline, were 
loaded with the necessities of the East which 
were disposed of by supercargoes, who in 
turn invested the proceeds in China shawls, 
teas, spices and other products of the country. 
Each vessel was a separate commercial venture, 
the officers and crew being permitted to invest 
in the cargoes, and there were cases where a 
party who joined the ship as cook took a 
greater share than the captain. 
Those ships were of necessity fast sailers, 
officers and owners were pushers, and the 
natural bent of the shipbuilder was the same in 
the direction of fine and beautiful vessels. In 
Baltimore, where the small ships were all fast, 
the expression of “Baltimore clipper” became a 
fixed one for all fast vessels. 
There is little or no improvement in the 
model of the “pungy” from the first I saw 
hauled out in my father’s yard over sixty years 
ago, up to the last one I saw; I don’t know if 
there are any to be seen to-day. Steam and 
the railroads have done much to eliminate the 
type. 
In the early fruit markets of Baltimore, 
Philadelphia, and New York, two types of 
vessels were conspicuous; the Chesapeake 
“pungy” was one of them, and was generally 
owned in the region of that bay; the other was 
a different type of vessel used in the region of 
Staten Island and on the Delaware in the 
oyster industry; while they were of somewhat 
similar dimensions to the “pungy” there was a 
difference in the types. 
The “pungy” had a great dead rise, was 
much sharper and drew more water aft than 
forward; the stem had quite a rake, and the 
stern post had much more; and her center of 
buoyancy was well forward of midships; the 
other vessels had much less dead rise, less rake 
to stem, and little or no rake to stern post. 
The principal difference was that they carried 
a centerboard and were in consequence called 
“centerboard schooners.” 
METHOD OF BUILDING “PUNGIES” ON CHESAPEAKE. 
On the Chesapeake the “pungy” was always 
built “from the eye” or “by the eye,” and the 
builders never built any other way. There was 
no model no “laying down” or “laying off” in 
the mold loft, nor were molds made there from 
a “body plan.” 
Each builder would have a stem and a mid¬ 
ship-section mold for all vessels, and as there 
was little in the dimensions of them, these two 
molds could be adjusted to an increase of a few 
inches in depth or width to suit contract re¬ 
quirements. No owner would admit that he 
was a mere copyist and would vary a foot or 
two in length of keel or a few inches deeper or 
shallower than his friend’s boat. 
The length of vessel was always determined 
by the length of keel, which was generally about 
sixty feet. 
The little differences in dimensions were 
easily made by the builder by the adjustment of 
the stem and midship-section molds. The first 
thing done was to lay the keel, then the stem 
mold and a straight board representing the 
stern post and its rake were tacked on to the 
keel, and when the amidship section was se¬ 
cured, a grand beginning was made in the form 
of the vessel. 
When this was done the owner was called to 
approve or modify the exhibit. He would al¬ 
ways desire a small change somewhere which 
the builder consented to have done, but he 
rarely ever did it. 
Then the stem itself and stern post with tran¬ 
som bolted on would be raised, also a midship- 
section mold of pine plank would be secured. 
The next step, which was always considered an 
important one, was to run the floor ribband 
which would be just below the floor heads. 
The adjustment of this floor ribband by means 
of shores put under it was a second important 
step in modeling the vessel. The builder was 
guided somewhat by temporary adjusting molds 
forward and aft that had often been used be¬ 
fore for the same purpose. The relationship of 
fineness of one end to the other was alto¬ 
gether a matter of judgment or taste, or, as 
some would have it, “guess.” But they never 
departed much from the last boat built. This 
practice accounted much for the wonderful 
similarity in all of these vessels built on the 
Chesapeake and its tributaries, whether they 
were built earlier or later. 'In all cases the 
American instinct was conspicuous. 
WOOD DUCK. 
Having built a celebrated “centerboard” 
schooner for a party in the oyster trade in Phil¬ 
adelphia which the owner named the Wood 
Duck, because he claimed that the wood duck 
was the handsomest waterfowl in existence, 
another party, a rival in the same business, a 
Mr. John Guyant, the owner of several “center- 
board” schooners and one or two “pungies,” 
conceived the idea that if my father could build 
or do so well in the case of the Wood Duck, he 
could do as well as the Chesapeake people in 
the “pungy.” 
In his contract for one with my father the 
only stipulation was the length of keel, and 
that she must be the fastest in both bays. Ac¬ 
cording to custom the owner had a name ready 
—War Eagle. He stated that the War Eagle 
could whip any bird alive. 
THE WAR EAGLE. 
My father, who. never declined taking a rea¬ 
sonable risk in his profession, so sure was he 
of himself, and this was a great risk, and be¬ 
sides that he always fought for glory and never 
considered there was much to be gained in the 
acquisition of a fortune, took the vessel at a 
low figure to make sure of the opportunity to 
show the other people in the business what he 
could do, as most of the other builders were 
also working for glory. He had subjected me 
as well as the rest of my brothers to severe 
drill, never hesitated to put responsible matters 
in our hands, and I being the eldest and not yet 
twenty, he had sufficient confidence in me to put 
the whole matter in my hands as to making the 
model and “laying her down” in the mold loft; 
of course this was under his supervision and 
approval. This model is still in existence, but 
the vessel varied somewhat from it. When in 
the mold loft I thought it better to imitate the 
“pungy” type as far as possible and increase the 
dead rise to suit; having made the model with 
less, I dropped the base line a foot, keeping the 
bilge where it had been. This was, of course, 
with my father’s permission. I stated that we 
might as well be “hung for a sheep as a lamb.” 
This was the only vessel of her type built 
north of Baltimore with the exception of a pilot 
boat or two, and I had my father’s word for it 
that he never heard of one. 
SAILING QUALITIES. 
The stipulation in the contract that the vessel 
should be the fastest in the two bays was com¬ 
pletely fulfilled. 
After some time had elapsed, Mr. Guyant 
sold the vessel to the Lombard Brothers of 
Philadelphia, also in the oyster trade, and who 
were noted for their superior qualities as 
watermen and in their reputation for making 
quick trips in their vessels. Desiring to keep 
up that reputation, they lengthened the spars 
and they soon indicated to the watermen of 
both bays that they had a master. 
I was informed by the late Mr. Hillman, 
shipbuilder of Philadelphia, that as a young 
man he had been brought up on the Chesapeake 
before he went as an apprentice to my great- 
uncle and that he was aboard the Protector on 
one occasion when she came in contact with the 
War Eagle. On this occasion, the largest fleet 
of them he ever saw was beating up the Chesa¬ 
peake in a gale of wind with the Protector as 
usual in the fore, but with the War Eagle 
leading her. 
All of the vessels, including the War Eagle, 
were under double-reefed mainsail with fore¬ 
stay sail full, and with the foresail and jib 
furled. Finding that she was shipping seas 
from the windward very heavily when she rolled, 
the sea being high, and as Mr. Lombard who 
was sailing at that time wanted to make a cer¬ 
tain point without tacking, he resolved to take 
a measure of great boldness, and an .additional 
motive for taking this step was to permanently 
establish his reputation as a sailor and the 
owner of the fastest vessel in the fleet. He 
shook out the reefs of his mainsail and un¬ 
furled the foresail and jib, carrying full sail. 
The effect of this exceeded his most sanguine 
expectations. “She seemed to ‘lift herself out 
of the water,’ ” said Mr. Hillman, “shipped no 
more seas from windward, and by making two 
points nearer the wind than before, she 
cleared the objective point without tacking, and 
then with started sheets she was seen no more 
by the rest of the fleet who were all com¬ 
pelled to tack-to round the point.” In his many 
accounts of this trip Mr. Hillman was ex¬ 
travagant in his praises of the War Eagle. 
This led to a formal race between the Pro¬ 
tector and War Eagle from the Capes of the 
Delaware to Philadelphia; it came off during a 
heavy northeast gale and as the Protector was 
distanced at the beginning she drew off and 
the War Eagle came in alone, 
After the death of one of the owners, she 
was sold to parties who used her for dredging 
for oysters in “forbidden ground” in the Chesa¬ 
peake; in view of her speed she was enabled to 
do this and avoid capture in spite of the vessels 
of the Maryland navy. But growing careless 
she was “caught napping” by the cruisers and 
was captured before she could get under way. 
She was sold by the State and that was the last 
I heard of her, and I presume she went where 
the good vessels go. 
There was but little difference in the model 
between the “pungy” and the pilot boat of our 
Atlantic ports and in general design of the 
“cup defending” yachts. 
1 he first difference I noticed was in the yacht 
