Horse Sense in Pilot Waters
First Lieutenant John C. Groome, Jr., Cavalry, P.N.G.—There was a time long ago, when coming alongside in the old home port, I had visions of my family, friendly faces, even my wire-haired terrier, all waiting and glad to see me. Now, after absorbing the various articles on the legal aspects of Rules of the Road as published in the Naval Institute PROCEEDINGS from time to time, I am very apprehensive. Instead of all those friendly faces I visualize a long line of grim United States deputy marshals, waiting to hail me before a gray- bearded Federal judge, grown weary and sour from frequently having to find legislation unconstitutional.
The burdened vessel, the privileged vessel, the crossing situation, all once so simple, are now litigious and fraught with dire peril. There used to be a time when I entered the Delaware that I would hold to the right-hand side of the channel, keep to myself, and be content with a single blast (usually ignored) at tow boats and tankers coming down stream, and continue peacefully on my way. Alas, awakened to legal consciousness I must hereafter repeat the signal, detonate, give the 4-whistle danger signal, ring down full astern and file a report with the local inspectors, assuming the tugs continue to ignore me as in the past.
So far the crew consisting of a mate, engineer, and deck hand has proved adequate. The deck hand this year, I think, should certainly be not less than a 3-year law student. The mate has given up the study of celestial navigation and is constantly quoting insurance rates with special reference to the protection and indemnity clauses. As for passengers or guests, I wouldn’t have one aboard for a million dollars. They might steal my Blackstone which has replaced Cugle, Lecky, and Bowditch!
I still have room for Riesenberg’s Standard Seamanship for the Merchant Service and should like to quote his opening remarks on rules of the road at sea:
It has become the fashion to treat the International Rules of the Road at Sea to a sort of literary vivisection, interlarding them with notes and “explanations” that to the mind of the present writer seem to do anything but clarify them. The best brains available were bent upon the task of producing the present International Rules, and as they stand today they are remarkable for their clear language, unmistakable in meaning and economical in words.
This economy in words certainly has not spread to the present-day authors on the same subject.
Anent “The Crossing Situation” I recall very vividly a lovely day in New London. My vessel was the Committee Boat for the ocean race from New London to Cape May. There were about 30 starters and we had been alongside each of them at least three times. At last, about ten minutes late, we were standing across from Sarah’s Ledge Gas Buoy to come to anchor and establish the starting line. Coming down stream on my port hand was the fast steam-turbine yacht While-away. I was flying the Commodore’s Flag, the Regatta Committee Flag, and was by far the smaller vessel. From this one might infer that we had the right of way not only on two counts legally, but from every standpoint of common courtesy usually obtaining between yachtsmen. I blew one blast and held my course. The Whileaway failed to reply. Rear Admiral T. P. Magruder was standing near me in the pilothouse.
“What would you do, sir?” I enquired.
“I’m not in command here, son. Do as you like.”
I still held my course and gave another blast on the siren. The Whileaway answered with two.
“Damn his soul,” I said. “We’ve certainly got the right of way.”
“We certainly have,” answered the Admiral, “but we’ll have breakfast in hell if you try to prove it.”
We had good backing power, and so had breakfast on board.
Now what would the author of “The Crossing Situation” do in a case like that?
Chemical Warfare
(See page 497, April, 1936, Proceedings)
L. P. Yates Smith.—May I draw your attention to a slight inaccuracy in Commander H. A. Flanigan’s “Chemical Warfare” in the PROCEEDINGS for April? The author states that the first gas attack launched by the Germans was directed against the British. This is not correct. The first gas attack launched on the Western Front (gas had been previously used against the Russians in January, 1915) was, as he states, on April 22, 1915, but was employed against the 87th Territorial Division and the 45th (Algerian) Division of the French Army. The Canadian troops of the British Second Army who were holding the trenches on the right flank of the French were very little affected by the gas, and although suffering from the artillery bombardment they gave no more ground than was necessary to swing round the left of their line to protect their own flank.
The total admissions, wounded and gassed, to Field Ambulances of the Second (British) Army during the period April 22-23 were 1,225, while the total admissions for April 22-30 were 12,180.
The total gas casualties of the British Imperial Forces admitted to Field Ambulances, etc., during the whole of 1915 were 12,792, and only 307 of these admissions died. These figures do not, of course, include those who died on the field.
Commander Flanigan might be interested to know that the gas casualties as a result of the phosgene attack on December 19, 1915, amounted to 1,097 with 120 deaths.
Flags of America
(See page 905, June, 1936, Proceedings)
Leonard Opdycke.—In the June number of the PROCEEDINGS there appeared an interesting article on the history of the United States Flag. Complete as it was, this article failed to include certain information which I have long and vainly hoped to discover. Perhaps the author of the article, or some other interested person, may be in a position to furnish it.
The Act of Congress of April 4, 1818, fixed the permanent form of the flag with the thirteen red and white stripes and a star for every state in the Union, each new star to be added on the Fourth of July following the admission of the new state.
In actual fact, how many times was the number of stars really changed in the flag itself as thirteen grew into the present forty-eight? And what were the patterns according to which the various numbers were arranged? In other words, how many different appearances did the flag present between the original 13-star and the present 48-star arrangement? The present writer doubts indeed whether the stars were really added one by one. Many numbers defy arrangement in any reasonable system of rows.
It would be interesting to know how many and just what arrangements were actually used, and during what periods of years. It would facilitate the dating of old photographs and other views of naval vessels—at least those in which the flag is shown with sufficient clearness to allow examination of the arrangement and number of the stars.
Miscellaneous Notes
R. E. Barry.—In the January, 1936, issue of the Naval Institute PROCEEDINGS, page 98, the quoted paragraph from “Discussions” seems entirely incorrect. It is most unfortunate that the term “stabilizer” has been used for the Sperry Gyroscopic Roll Quencher. Neither it, the Frahm tanks, nor other device increases the metacentric height. These devices do oppose the roll of vessels with a large G.M., that is vessels with too great stability for comfort.
In the December, 1935, issue, page 1836, is given the photograph of a New York pilot boat, stating that it was one phase of life of the famous America. This vessel has a plumb stem, while the old America had and has a raking stem of about 30 degrees.
In the September, 1935, issue, page 1253, the Henry B. Hyde is reported as hitting the beach south of Cape Henry, while on a trip to San Francisco. This gives a wrong impression of her ability to beat to windward and of the master’s navigation. She was in tow to Baltimore to load coal for San Francisco. The towboat’s bitts were so far aft that in a squall she could not head up into the wind, so cut the hawser and let the ship go ashore. The Hyde was pulled off a few days later, but with a head wind the same trouble was encountered and she later broke up.