This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
Bay, St. John, New Brunswick, in the V 1850 or 1851. Her phenomenal performs
she fell over on her side at low tide. It tot’ two weeks of excavating around her hull
One of the fastest clipper ships to sail t ^ seas during the middle of the last century " the ship Marco Polo. .
According to Frederick William WallacC his book, Wooden Ships and Iron Men, the c°^ struction of the Marco Polo is attributed James Smith of Marsh Creek in CourteO^
iflce
i u w ui i u J l • ltVyt i ic/* *
was attributed to chance. Some claimed t a mishap which attended her launching her hull a fortuitous twist. When she - ^ down the ways, she shot across the creek aI* into the mud on the opposite shore, free her. Others have credited the drivl.jj energy of her master, “Bully” Forbes, her consistent record for speed.
Whatever the reason for the speedy runs
Who Built the Marco Polo:
by Norman Ru^’1
‘he Marco Polo, it appears that Smith was er able to produce another vessel of com- l fa ’*e performance. His best efforts, both e 0re and after the Marco Polo, resulted in , lcing only common timber carriers, with Six-year classification from Lloyd’s, his curious situation is made more per- hibXlnS by the report of the judges of the ex- 185jS at '■he Paris Exposition Universelle of
sidei
These august individuals, when con- ring “Marine et Art Militaire,’’'1 remarked
Monsieur Lee, a French Canadian of
b,
'ttild
Ing ships as large as 1,100 tons. His
,Ucts were known for their integrity and ltY, but not for speed of sailing.
that “
^Uebec is one of the principal and most suc- jj s ui shipbuilders of Canada, we could al- cst say of the world. The clipper Marco Polo ^ me from shipyard.” For this achieve- ant’ Plus the ship Shooting Star, Lee was arded “U medaille de 1T’ classe." f']'s l° Was Parag°n amongst shipbuild- ■ Vvhom the French credited with the build- ?°f the Marco Polo?
st i °mas Conrad Lee had his office and hfoorns in Quebec City on Dalhousie ||.re<:t> beneath the ramparts of the Citadel. , sprawling shipyard on Hare Point em- °Ved more than 700 men.
f 850, in this impressive plant, Lee was
Prod
tjual
j ✓ 3 ^ V
Qj. n 1853, Lee went to New York in search va talented designer who could produce V k high performance. He returned IVilliam Power, who became the deus ex lrta of the busy shipyard. lsla°Wer Was b°rn *n 1821 in Prince Edward (V nd, and when a child, moved to Quebec s^. Here he was apprenticed to Gilmour’s r^jPyard, and later went to New York. After f f.J, n'ng to Quebec, he produced designs for Jp and for other yards, principally that of hispp°lyte Dubord, and did some building on ;j n(j°'Vn account. When the production of iron i„tsteel ships in British yards began to cut tg0° Quebec shipbuilding industry, Power ln to Montreal and operated a drydock.
he relocated in Kingston, Ontario, 5rif^rie he turned out schooners, “propellers,” Q barges. He died in 1899.
While employed by Lee, Power designed at least 20 vessels, including an 800-tonner that went into almost mass production. His designs achieved a reputation for speed. To note a few: the Arthur the Great ran from London to Bombay in 83 days; the Shooting Star went from Quebec to Liverpool in 14 days on her maiden voyage, and later made fast passages to Australia. The Rock City outsailed larger vessels, once beating the American clipper Fleetwing by 14 days from Angers, France, to New York. La Belle Canadienne, an armed schooner built for the Province of Quebec, had such a reputation as a clipper that Lee had a standing bet of £500 that she could beat the America.
It seems logical that a fast ship like the Marco Polo would have come from a yard and a designer with the capability of building fast vessels rather than having been the only racehorse in a family of Percherons.
Did the savants of Napoleon III commit the error of attributing the Marco Polo to the wrong shipyard? Or is there another explanation?
Smith’s Marco Polo was described as a three- decker, 185 feet between perpendiculars, breadth amidships 38 feet, depth of hold amidships 30 feet, and with the upper deck flush from stem to stern. There was neither poop nor forecastle, but small houses at each hatch. Contemporary accounts describe a vessel having a poop used as a ladies’ cabin and a house forward which served as a dining saloon. Berths were in staterooms below-decks.
A half-model in the Mariners Museum at Newport News, Virginia, shows a ship 192 feet between perpendiculars with a long (56-foot) poop, a forecastle 28 feet long, and a house (also 28 feet long) between fore and mainmasts. Did Smith’s ship undergo extensive modification, or were there two ships of the same name? Certainly, the half-model shows no kinship to any of Power’s known designs.
The answer to this little puzzle is not known, and unless new evidence is uncovered, all that can be offered is a repetition of the question, “Who built the Marco Polo?’’’’