RAFTS FOR SHIPWRECK.
[TO THZ EDITOR OP TRH "SPECTATOR...]
SIR,—You have been once again giving vent to my bumble opinions about the efficacy of rafts, and their being carried in these enormous steamers, and I thank you, and will once again make my statement in direct opposition to them as a useless encumbrance on board these vessels, that are now bound to carry boats for all passengers conducive to their safety in case of serious collision or breaking out of fire. Firstly, we must picture the scene: the ship is known to be
doomed ; the first object of those in command is not only to get the passengers out of the ship, but away from her with all speed, and boats are made for the purpose. With the raft it is proposed that it is to be filled with panic-stricken poor souls ; they are to collect in it, remain in it, until such time that the ship sinks from under it, and when this time arrives is it possible to conceive that this raft and all on board will not be liable to the horrors of being sucked down, to say nothing of the explosion and other considerations too terrible to contemplate, that are best left unsaid? Yet more, to add to this tale of horrors : none of these ships sink from the position of even keel; their final plunge is by the stern or bow, at a frightful angle, or, perhaps, whilst lying over on their broadside, as was the case with the Empress of Ireland.' Of what use could a raft be under such conditions ? Where would end the horrors to those on board of it ? You argue, with a certain amount of justification, that when once the ship has disappeared, this raft would prove a means for poor drowning beings to cling to, but you seem to leave out of account that all those that originally took to this raft have been washed or driven out of it ; those still alive will undoubtedly attempt to cling to it, but I want, and should always want, my passengers to get into the boats. Plenty of devices could be made that would ensure floating material being carried on upper structures that would act as life- saving apparatus for those that for some reason or other could not get into the boats. One sentence or so more, and I have done. Let us suppose for a moment that this doomed ship's human freight consisted of seamen instead of civilians, and that there were boats in sufficiency to carry this living freight : would one amongst them, when ordered to desert the ship, seat himself in a raft for choice, to getting away at once in a boat clear of all suction, explosion, and other horrors ? Most certainly not. How much more, then, is it necessary to get panic-stricken passengers, utterly helpless in proportion, into boats that alone can save life with any degree of certainty. Once the watertight compartments fail you, the boats can alone save.—I am, Sir, &c., V. A. MoNTAou, Rear-Admiral.
[We are nearer agreement with Admiral Montagu than we thought. Of course, let the primary object—which we have always assumed as indisputable—be to place all the passengers in proper boats. If this could be done there would be no need for rafts. But the 'Empress of Ireland' sank so rapidly that the boats could not be launched. The substance of our argument is that when a ship sinks thus rapidly there ought to be plenty of "floating material" (which we should prefer to have in the form of rafts) left behind for passengers to cling to or climb on to as a last resort.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
