E-text prepared by Colin Bell, Joseph Cooper, Chris Logan, and the Project
Gutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team (https://www.pgdp.net)



Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this
      file which includes the original illustrations.
      See 25544-h.htm or 25544-h.zip:
      (https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/2/5/5/4/25544/25544-h/25544-h.htm)
      or
      (https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/2/5/5/4/25544/25544-h.zip)





Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology:
Paper 21

THE PIONEER STEAMSHIP SAVANNAH:

A Study for a Scale Model

by

HOWARD I. CHAPELLE







_Howard I. Chapelle_

The Pioneer Steamship

SAVANNAH:

_A Study for a Scale Model_

    _The original plans of the pioneer transatlantic steamer_ Savannah
    _no longer exist, and many popular representations of the famous
    vessel have been based on a 70-year-old model in the United States
    National Museum. This model, however, differs in several important
    respects from contemporary illustrations._

    _To correct these apparent inaccuracies in a new, authentic model,
    a reconstruction of the original plans was undertaken, using as
    sources the ship's logbook and customhouse description, a French
    report on American steam vessels published in 1823, and Russian
    newspaper accounts contemporary with the_ Savannah's _visit to St.
    Petersburg on her historic voyage of 1819. The development of this
    research and the resulting information in terms of her
    measurements and general description are related here._

    THE AUTHOR: _Howard I. Chapelle is curator of transportation in
    the United States National Museum, Smithsonian Institution._


The United States National Museum has in its watercraft collection a
rigged scale model purported to be of the pioneer transatlantic
steamer _Savannah_. For many years this model was generally accepted
as being a reasonably accurate representation and was the basis for
countless illustrations. Curiously enough, the model (USNM 160364)
does not agree with the published catalog description[1] as to the
side paddle wheels. Neither does it agree with the material in the
Marestier report,[2] which is accepted as the only source for a
contemporary picture of the _Savannah_.

The recent naming of an atomic-powered ship in honor of the famous
steamer greatly increased popular interest in the pioneer ship and its
supposed model. Consequently, the National Museum undertook the
research necessary to correct or replace the existing model. This
research has been carried out by the staff of the Museum's
transportation division with the aid of Frank O. Braynard of the
American Merchant Marine Institute, Eugene S. Ferguson, curator of
mechanical and civil engineering at the Museum, and others.

The _Savannah_ crossed from Savannah, Georgia, to Liverpool, England,
in the period May 22 to June 20, 1819; and proceeded to the Baltic,
where she entered at St. Petersburg (now Leningrad), Stockholm, and a
few other ports. On her return she reached Savannah on November 30,
and on December 3 she sailed for Washington, D.C., arriving on
December 16. Her original logbook now on exhibition in the Museum,[3]
covers the period between March 28, 1819, when she first left New York
for Savannah, to December 1819 when she was at Washington.

[Illustration: Figure 1.--Old model of the _Savannah_, built under the
supervision of Captain Collins. This model has been removed from
exhibition in the United States National Museum because of
inaccuracies. (_USNM_ 160364; _Smithsonian photo_ 14355.)]

The old model (fig. 1) was built about 1890-1892 by Lawrence Jenson, a
master shipwright and model builder of Gloucester and Rockport,
Massachusetts, under the supervision of Capt. Joseph Collins of the
U.S. Fish Commission. Notes in the records of the Museum's
transportation division show that the research for this model was done
by Captain Collins through use of an unidentified lithograph, printed
after the transatlantic voyage, and what then could be learned about
American sailing ships contemporary with the _Savannah_. In these
notes the complaint is made that no contemporary representation of the
steamship had then been found.

The old, inaccurate model, built to the scale of one-half inch to the
foot, represents an auxiliary, side-wheel, ship-rigged steamer. The
model scale measurements are about 120 feet in over-all length, 29
feet in beam, and 13 feet 6 inches depth in hold. The tonnage is
stated on the exhibit card to have been about 350 tons, old
measurement. The model has crude wooden side paddles of the radial
type, a tall straight smokestack between fore and main masts, a small
deckhouse forward of the stack, a raised quarter-deck, and a round
stern.

[Illustration: Figure 2.--The United States National Museum's new
model of the _Savannah_. This model was built by Arthur Henning, Inc.,
of New York City, from the ship's plans as reconstructed by staff
members of the Museum's division of transportation. (_USNM_ 319026.)]

The first step in the research for creating a more faithful
representation of the _Savannah_ was to obtain the customhouse
description of the ship. It was readily established that she was built
as a sailing packet ship by the Fickett and Crockett shipyard[4] at
Corlaer's Hook, East River, New York, and that she was launched August
22, 1818. Her register shows that she was 98 feet 6 inches in length
between perpendiculars, 25 feet 10 inches in beam, 14 feet 2 inches
depth in hold, of 319-70/94 tons burthen, and with square stern, round
tuck, no quarter galleries, and a man's bust figurehead.

These dimensions of the _Savannah_ required the researchers to
investigate the method of taking register dimensions in 1818. It was
found that the customhouse rule then in effect measured length
between perpendiculars above the upper deck, from "foreside of the
main stem" to the "after side of the sternpost." The beam was measured
outside of plank at the widest point in the hull, above the main
wales. If a vessel were single-decked, the depth was measured
alongside the keelson at main hatch from ceiling to underside of deck
plank; if double-decked, one-half the measured beam was the register
depth.[5] However, inspection of the register of a number of ships of
1815-1840 showed that, in practice, double-decked ships commonly were
measured as single-decked ships; this obviously was the case in the
_Savannah_. Also, due to the lack of precise measuring devices, the
register dimensions were not always accurate, particularly those of
the length, which often were in error as much as one foot in a
hundred, as was found by investigation of various classes of vessels.
Because of inherent difficulties in measuring to the required points,
this condition lasted even after steel tapes were introduced late in
the 19th century.

The Museum's researchers next turned their attention to examination of
the Marestier work, a French report on early American steam vessels
that had become known to some American marine historians in the
1920's. The author was a French naval constructor who, on orders from
his government, had spent two years in the United States between 1819
and 1822 studying American steam vessels, schooners, and naval
vessels. The published report contained only material on steam vessels
and schooners. The portion dealing with naval vessels was not
published, and the manuscript has not been found to the present time
(1960). The publication, a rare book, was available in only a few
collectors' libraries or public institutions in the United States. In
1930 the writer translated the chapter on schooners,[6] and in 1957
Sidney Withington translated most of the remainder.[7] As a result of
these publications and earlier published references, the Marestier
material became widely known to persons interested in ships.

[Illustration: Figure 3.--Marestier's sketch of the _Savannah_ (from
plate 8 in Withington's translation of the Marestier report). Heights
of lower masts are excessive by all known American masting rules; and,
according to Marestier's drawing of the engine (see figure 4), the
deckhouse is too short.]

Withington's translation states that the _Savannah_ measured 30.48
meters (100 feet) in length and 7.92 meters (26 feet) in beam and that
she drew 3.66 meters (12 feet) in port and 4.27 meters (14 feet)
loaded. Marestier's sketch (see fig. 3) of the outboard of the
_Savannah_ shows a ship-rigged, flush-decked vessel with a small
deckhouse forward of the mainmast and nearly abreast of the side
paddle wheels. The stack is a little forward of the deckhouse and has
an elbow at its top. Netting quarter-deck rail is shown and a bust
figurehead is indicated. The position of the hawse pipe shown at the
bow indicates the wheel shaft to have been at or about deck level. For
structural reasons, and in compliance with the sketch, the wheel shaft
would have been just above the deck.

[Illustration: Figure 4.--Marestier's drawings of the _Savannah's_
engine (from plate 7 in Withington's translation of the Marestier
report). The graphic dimensions do not precisely correspond to the
scale of dimensions in Marestier's text, nor with other recorded
measurements.]

Marestier's drawings of the engine and paddle wheels[8] are reproduced
in figure 4. The nonoscillating engine is inclined toward the
paddle-wheel shaft. The connecting rod operates a crosshead to which
is pivoted a pitman, or oscillating rod, that operates the
paddle-wheel crankshaft. Alongside the steam cylinder is an air pump
cylinder, also connected to the crosshead. The steam inlet and outlet
pipes enter a valve chest on top of the steam cylinder, which is
described as being 1.035 meters (3.4 feet) in diameter, and of 1.5
meters (4.9 feet) in stroke.

The paddle wheels are shown as being of iron, with two fixed arms
opposite one another on the hub. The other arms (four above and four
below the fixed arms) are pivoted to the hub and held spread by chain
stays. These eight blades fold, in pairs, to each of the fixed arms.
The wheels are shown in elevation, with the upper pivoted arms folded
on top of the fixed arms, and in cross section; the latter shows the
shape of the buckets, hub, and outboard bearing of the shaft. The
wheels are described as being 4.9 meters (16 feet) in diameter, while
the buckets are 1.42 meters (4.65 feet) wide and 0.83 meters (2.72
feet) deep. The two outer corners of each bucket are snyed off at
nearly 45°. The wheels are shown folded in the sketch; according to
the description, they could be unshipped from the shaft and stowed on
deck when desired. The method of removing the wheels from the shaft is
not described, but from the drawings it seems probable that they were
detached from the shaft by removing a lock bolt outboard and sliding
the wheels off the square shaft. The hub seems adequate for this.
Marestier states that this removal could be accomplished in 15 to 20
minutes; the logbook shows that it took 20 to 30 minutes to perform
this operation at sea.

Marestier states that the ship had spencer masts and trysails on fore
and main, and a spencer mast on the mizzen for a spanker; he
illustrates these as having royal poles, but with no royal yards
crossed.[9] The smokestack is described as pivoted. The mainstay is
double, setting up at deck, near rail, and forward of the foremost
shrouds of the foremast to clear the stack and foremast.

The boilers were in the hold, but Marestier gives no dimensions.
However, he comments that, in American steamers, the space for steam
in the boilers varied from 6 to 12 times the capacity of the cylinder.
He gives the _Savannah's_ boiler pressure as 2 to 5 pounds per square
inch and the maximum revolution of the wheels as 16 revolutions per
minute. The boilers could burn coal or wood. Judging by Marestier's
sketch of the ship, the stack was at the firebox end; the boiler or
boilers were underneath the engine.

The log of the _Savannah_ gives little useful technical information
other than that the ship readily made 9 to 10 knots under sail in
fresh winds, showing she could sail well. Under steam alone the log
credits the ship with a speed of 6 knots; Marestier estimated her
speed at 5-1/4 knots in smooth water. The log shows that she usually
furled her sails when steaming, though on a few occasions she used
both steam and sail. In her crossing from Savannah to Liverpool she
appears to have been under steam for a little less than 90 hours in a
period of about 18 days (out of the total of 29 days and 11 hours
required to cross). There is no evidence of any intent to make the
whole passage under steam alone, for the vessel was intended to be an
auxiliary, with sails the chief propulsion.

Captain Collins states in his notes that the ship was built by Francis
Fickett as a Havre packet, that she stowed 75 tons of coal and 25
cords of wood, and cost $50,000. Apparently quoting Preble[10] to a
great extent, he also states that the engine developed 90 horsepower
and had a 40-inch diameter cylinder with a stroke of 5 feet.

Preble states that the ship was purchased for conversion to a steamer
after launching and gives statements by Stevens Rogers, sailing master
of the _Savannah_, to the effect that the ship was built as a Havre
packet and that the project ruined financially one of the investors,
William Scarborough. Rogers, who made these statements in 1856, also
said the ship was built by "Crocker and Fickett." Contemporary
newspapers, quoted by Preble, state that the ship had 32 berths in
staterooms for passengers.

Morrison[11] credits the building of the _Savannah_ to Francis Fickett
and says she was intended for the Havre packet run. He states that the
vessel cost $50,000; that her paddle wheels, each with eight buckets,
were 16 feet in diameter; and that she had canvas wheel boxes
supported by an iron frame. Morrison also relates the history of the
ship after her return from Russia--the removal and the sale of her
machinery to James P. Allaire, the operation of the ship as a sailing
packet between New York and Savannah under the ownership and command
of Captain Holdridge, and her stranding and loss during an
east-northeast gale on November 5, 1821, at Great South Beach, off
Bellport, on the south shore of Long Island. He also states that the
steam cylinder of her engine was exhibited at the Crystal Palace Fair
in New York during 1853, and that the ship proved uneconomical due to
the large amount of space occupied by the engine, boilers, and fuel,
leaving little space for cargo. Morrison apparently used some of the
statements made in 1836 and 1856 by Stevens Rogers, who was the
sailing master on the famous voyage.

Tyler[12] names the stockholders of the Savannah Steamship Company,
owner of the _Savannah_. The company was proposed by Capt. Moses
Rogers, and its shareholders were William Scarborough, John McKenna,
Samuel Howard, Charles Howard, Robert Isaacs, S. C. Dunning, A. B.
Fannin, John Haslett, A. S. Bullock, James Bullock, John Bogue, Andrew
Low, Col. J. P. Henry, J. Minis, John Sparkman, Robert Mitchell, R.
Habersham, J. Habersham, Gideon Pott, W. S. Gillet, and Samuel Yates.
Tyler establishes, by the company's charter, that the objective was to
institute a New York-Savannah packet service, for which the _Savannah_
was to be the first ship. He shows that, due to the economic
depression of 1819, the _Savannah_ sailed to Liverpool in ballast and
without passengers. Her fuel capacity is given as 1,500 bushels (75
tons) of coal and 25 cords of wood. [It should be noted that 1,500
bushels of bituminous coal does not quite equal 75 tons.] Tyler quotes
S. C. Gilfillan[13] as to criticisms of the engine and its design.

Partington[14] estimated coal consumption to be nearly 10 tons a day;
remarked on the uneconomical arrangement of the ship, with the engine
and boiler occupying the greater part of the space amidships, between
fore and main masts; and located the axle of the paddle wheel "above
the bends," that is, in the topsides above the wale. The description
he gives of the unshipping of the wheels is that the pivoted blades
were removed and the fixed blades, in horizontal position, were left
on the shaft. This agrees with a Russian description referred to
later. The logbook repeatedly speaks of "shipping" and "unshipping"
the paddle wheels, indicating that the wheels were entirely removed
from the shafts and stowed on deck.

Watkins[15] showed, by the account books of Stephen Vail, owner of the
Speedwell Ironworks near Morristown, New Jersey, that the engine was
built by Vail, but apparently to designs by Daniel Dod. The latter
built the _Savannah's_ boiler at Elizabeth, New Jersey, and made some
parts of the engine, which he furnished, incomplete in some instances,
to Vail. These account books, which were in the possession of John
Lidgerwood of New York City in 1890, show the steam cylinder to have
had an inside diameter of 40-3/8 inches and a 5-foot stroke. Reference
in the account books to an error in Dod's draught of a piston proves
that Dod designed the engine.

Watkins states that the engine was rated at 90 horsepower. He does not
give the diameter of the pump cylinder, but, judging by the scaling of
Marestier's drawing and by a rather indefinite entry in the Vail
account book, it appears to have been between 17 and 18 inches.
Quoting Captain Collins at some length, Watkins writes that the
mainmast was placed farther aft than was usual in a sailing ship, and
that the vessel had a round stern. Collins apparently based his
opinion upon an unidentified "contemporaneous lithograph" and upon
"all other illustrations of this famous vessel." Collins' conception
of the appearance of the _Savannah_ is shown in a drawing by C. B.
Hudson that is reproduced as the frontispiece in Watkins' publication.
A statement by Stevens Rogers that was published in the _New London
Gazette_ in 1836 appears to have been the original source for
statements regarding the _Savannah's_ fuel capacity, her sale, and her
loss in 1821 while owned and commanded by Capt. Nathaniel Holdridge,
"now master of the Liverpool packet ship _United States_." Watkins
also gives a picture of Stevens Rogers' tombstone, on which there is a
small carving purported to be of the _Savannah_. The tombstone was
made in 1868.

From a Russian newspaper contemporary with the _Savannah's_ visit to
St. Petersburg, Frank Braynard found a statement that the vessel had
two boilers, each 27 feet long and 6 feet in diameter.[16] It was also
shown she had at least one chain cable. Considerable information on
the cabin arrangement and the method of folding the wheels was also
obtained from this Russian source.

In spite of a very extensive bibliography on the _Savannah_, the basic
sources for reliable technical description are Marestier's report on
American steamers, the logbook of the ship, Watkins' extracts from the
Speedwell Iron Works account book, the customhouse records, and some
of the statements made by Stevens Rogers between 1836 and 1856. Plans
of the ship, or a builder's half-model, have not been found.
Marestier's sketch of the _Savannah_, which is not a scale drawing,
and his drawings of the engine and paddle wheels were the only
available illustrations upon which reconstruction could be based.

Through the efforts of Malcolm Bell, Jr., of Savannah, Georgia, and
Frank Braynard, a search was made by Russian authorities at Leningrad
for contemporary references to the ship. This work resulted in
information as to how the side wheels were folded, the dimensions of
the boilers, and some description of the cabins and fittings.

As to the ship itself, the customhouse registered dimensions are of
prime importance; they fix the over-all hull dimensions within
reasonable limits. A vessel of 1818 measuring 98 feet 6 inches between
perpendiculars would have been 100 to 104 feet long at rail. The type
of ship represented by the _Savannah_ is well established. All
references are in agreement that she was built as a packet ship--a
Havre or transatlantic packet in most accounts.

The packet ships listed by Albion[17] show that all the pioneer ships
of the transatlantic Black Ball Line--which began operation with the
sailing of the 424-ton _James Monroe_ on January 5, 1818--measured at
least 103 feet 6 inches between perpendiculars. Two of the pioneer
ships of the first Havre Line--which did not begin operation until
1822--were under 98 feet between perpendiculars. The second Havre Line
began operation in 1823; of its four pioneer packets, two were
purchased general traders measuring under 98 feet between
perpendiculars. The coastal packets built between 1817 and 1823 were
all under 100 feet between perpendiculars. It is apparent, then, that
the size of the early packets did not indicate, with any degree of
certainty, the trade in which they might be employed.

Belief that the _Savannah_ was built as a Havre packet is based upon
Stevens Rogers' statements, and her size obviously does not make this
impossible; nevertheless, it seems highly improbable that she was
built for the Havre service because no Havre line of packets had been
organized as early as 1818 out of New York or Savannah so far as can
be found. However, the matter is not of very great concern as it is
probably true that the models of coastal and transatlantic packet
ships were quite similar at the period of the _Savannah_. This
statement is supported by the plan of a coastal packet built seven
years after the _Savannah_.

The hull-type of these early packets can be established. While no
half-models or plans of packets built before 1832 could be found,
offset tables of a Philadelphia-New Orleans packet of 1824-1825 were
obtained through the courtesy of William Salisbury, an English marine
historian who had been studying the British mail packets. These offset
tables had been sent from Washington on March 25, 1831, by John
Lenthall, U.S. naval constructor, to William Morgan and Augustin
Creuze, London editors, for publication.[18] The offset tables were
for a packet ship 103 feet between the perpendiculars of the builder
(rather than between those of the customhouse) and 27 feet moulded
beam. An examination of the files on American packet vessels in the
collection of Carl C. Cutler, curator emeritus of the Mystic Marine
Museum, showed with certainty that the offsets were for the _Ohio_,
built at Philadelphia late in 1825. The drawings of this ship (fig. 5)
were made from the offset tables and from other measurements; minor
details are from portraits of packet ships, particularly of the first
_New York_ (1822-1834) of the Black Ball Line.

[Illustration: Figure 5.--Lines of the coastal packet ship _Ohio_,
built at Philadelphia in 1825 for the Philadelphia-New Orleans run.
The _Ohio_ represents the general type of early American packet
ships.]

The _Ohio_ was two-decked, with the upper deck flush. She had rather
straight sheer, 27-inch bulwarks, a moderately full but easy entrance,
a fine, long run, and little drag to the keel. The midsection was
formed with moderately short and rising floor, round and easy bilge,
and some tumble-home in the topside. The stem raked a good deal for a
ship-rigged vessel; the post raked slightly. There was a distance of 6
feet between upper and lower deck planks. The stern was of the square
transom, round tuck form, as mentioned in the _Savannah's_ register.
Lenthall reported the _Ohio_ to have been a good sailer and to have
had other desirable qualities. She was registered as being of 351.86
tons burthen, 105.5 feet between perpendiculars, and 27.4 feet in
extreme beam. She was, therefore, about 7 feet longer and about 2
feet 3 inches wider than the _Savannah_. The plan shows she was about
2 feet 4 inches deeper in hold than the _Savannah_, and, according to
Cutler, she had "an unexpected degree of sophistication for a coastal
packet of that period."[19] By modern standards, the _Ohio_ shows a
well-advanced design for the period.


Reconstructing the Plans

The first step in the reconstruction of the _Savannah's_ plans was to
block out the register dimensions on a scale of one-quarter inch to
the foot in a drawing and then to work out the profile, using the
_Ohio_ plan as a general guide. This produced a hull about 100 feet 9
inches in length at main rail to inside of plank, or "moulded"; 25
feet 6 inches moulded beam, allowing 3 inches for plank (as usual in a
ship of this size and date); and about 15 feet 4 inches moulded depth
at side, keel rabbet to underside of upper deck. The bulwarks were
drawn at 28 inches height. Next, the mast positions were decided by
prorating from the plan of the _Ohio_ the position of each mast from
the fore perpendicular and then modifying these positions slightly by
use of masting rules contained in M'Kay's book[20] of 1839.

Since it appears that the _Savannah_ may not have been purchased for
conversion to a steamer until near the date of her launch and because
of the lack of identification of the lithograph referred to by
Collins, the statement that the mainmast was placed farther aft than
normal was rejected. At launch her mast partners would have been in
place and the deck laid. Any alterations in the position of the
mainmast then would have made it impractical for the owners to demand
them of the builders without heavy additional expense. In addition,
the plan, as it was developed, indicated no need for such alteration.

The plan of the engine, drawn to the same scale as the profile plan,
was shifted about on the lower deck in the hull profile to determine
where the engine and side paddle wheel shaft might be located. A
little experimentation and study made it certain that the proper
location could be estimated within a foot or so, to scale, as to fore
and aft positions. The after end of the cylinder, and its piping, had
to clear the mainmast by at least 9 to 10 inches to allow removal of
the cylinder head for inspection and repair. The position of the
wheels, stack, and masts in Marestier's sketch of the ship make it
certain that the engine was on the lower deck, abaft the paddle wheel
shaft. Due to differences between the dimensions stated by Marestier
and in the Vail account books and what the graphic scale in
Marestier's engine drawings produce, the exact dimensions of the
engine are uncertain. Nevertheless, they can be approximated with
enough accuracy for our purpose. As a result of this treatment, it
seems fully apparent that the engine was abaft the paddle wheel shaft,
with frame extending abaft the mainmast on the lower deck; there does
not appear to be a practical alternative in the light of the available
evidence. This matter will be referred to again.

The size of the cylinder and its valve chest and the inclined position
of the cylinder indicate conclusively that the valve chest was in the
mainhatch, which would normally be just forward of the mainmast. Even
then, the after flange of the cylinder would just clear the lower
deck, allowing 6 feet between decks, as in the _Ohio_. The cylinder
would have been about 6 feet long; the graphic scale indicated 6 feet
3 inches. The diameter of the cylinder plus height of valve chest
seems to have been 5 feet 9 inches to 6 feet. Because of the use of
the crosshead and a connecting rod, pivoted at crosshead, the
oscillating rod (or pitman) and piston together equalled twice the
stroke plus allowance for stuffing box, crosshead, and pitman
bearings. Therefore, the engine's over-all length, from head of
cylinder to the centerline of the side paddle wheel shaft, could not
have been much less than 15 feet 9 inches, and probably as much as 16
feet 2 inches, thus making the length at extreme clearance of crank
throw as much as 19 feet. These dimensions indicate that the
centerline of the side paddle wheel shaft must have been from 38 to 39
feet from the forward perpendicular. It is not clear how the wheel
shaft was mounted in the vessel. Taking into consideration her depth
and her reported draught, light and loaded, the Marestier sketch, and
the hull structure then used, it seems reasonable to place the
centerline of the shaft (which seems to have been about 7 to 8 inches
square) about 12 inches above the upper (or spar) deck to allow proper
dip of the blades. This position would have given proper blade
immersion at the mean draught of 13 feet.

In order to get the engine below deck, and to get the boiler or
boilers placed, it was necessary to cut a large opening in the two
decks. It may be assumed that this opening was big enough to take the
cylinder, without valve chest, and also the boilers, which went into
the hold. Taking the proportions of other boilers as shown by
Marestier, it has been estimated that the _Savannah_ might have had a
boiler about 18 to 20 feet in length, 7 to 8 feet wide, and 6 to 6-1/2
feet high at firebox. The form might be the same as that of _Fulton
the First_, illustrated in the translation of Marestier's report.[21]
However, since the Russian descriptions[22] indicate there were two
boilers, each measuring 6 feet in diameter and 27 feet in length, the
two boilers would have reached past the mainmast if they were located
in the same manner and in the same place as the boilers shown in the
illustration of _Fulton the First_. Consequently, if the Russian
description is accepted, there would have been a need for longer fuel
(coal) spaces in the wings.

The boilers, then, were the largest piece of equipment to be passed
through the decks; for this an opening (estimated to have been about
10-1/2 feet wide and 8-1/2 feet long) probably was cut through both
decks about 3 feet forward of the main hatch, which was commonly a
little forward of the mainmast. The boilers could then have been
lowered, after end first, into the hold. The opening in the lower deck
could then have been closed, except for a small hatchway perhaps, and
the steam cylinder let down to the lower deck and moved aft into
position. To allow the crosshead to reach its maximum travel, the
opening in the upper deck would have been about 10-1/2 feet wide--the
over-all width of the engine frame--and would have been left open,
inside the deckhouse.

The width of the boilers might be particularly important because it
would determine the deadrise at floor in the hull. The apparently
precise dimensions of the boilers given in the Russian description
were utilized to arrive at a suitable hull form. Both a single boiler
and a double boiler (as described in the Russian accounts) were placed
in the hull to assure the correct space estimates.

Since the engine, as shown by Marestier, had an air-pump cylinder
alongside the steam cylinder (with the pistons of both attached to the
crosshead), it is evident that a condenser was employed. This
condenser would not have been much larger than the air-pump cylinder.
It may have been placed under the side paddle wheel axle on the lower
deck, but its mode of operation is unknown. Possibly it was of the
jet type, with pumps operating off the paddle wheel axle and with a
return of condensate from a hot well into the feed water line. A
number of possibilities could be mentioned, all speculative. However,
there was no doubt that this equipment could be properly installed in
the reconstructed hull, either on the lower deck or in the hold.

Two questions have been raised as to machinery arrangement--whether
the engine, and boilers also, might have been forward of the wheel
shaft, and whether the wheel shaft was above or below deck. If the
engine were placed forward of the wheel shaft, the wheels might be
farther aft than is proposed in the reconstruction. However, the
smokestack could not then be forward of the wheel shaft as shown by
Marestier because it would have had to pass through the engine frame,
thus interfering with the movement of the large crosshead. If the
engine were abaft the wheel shaft, the stack could have been only as
shown by Marestier. The boilers might then have been forward of the
wheel shaft only if the stack were at the end away from the firebox.
However, the length of the boilers as indicated by the Russian
description would then have required them to pass through the bows!

Models have been built of the _Savannah_ in which the engine and
boilers are forward of the paddle wheel shaft, and the shaft below the
main deck. This was accomplished by placing the engine off center so
that the stack came through the decks alongside it. This is an
impractical arrangement because it would have created an impossible
ballasting problem. The weight of the engine, to port in the models,
would have to have been counteracted by ballast to starboard. Due to
the coal bunkers, and the possibility of two boilers below the engine
in the hold, there would not have been room for sufficient ballast. In
addition, were such ballasting possible, the combined weights were too
far forward to give proper trim, and a great deal more ballast would
have been required far aft, a most impractical proceeding.

The position of the wheel shaft was determined as described earlier.
The ship was apparently well-advanced in construction at the time of
purchase. Her clamps and shelves supporting her upper deck beams,
which then would have been in place, were important strength members.
In reconstructing, to place the wheel shaft below these members would
not only bring the engine nearly level--it is described and shown
inclined by Marestier--but also would immerse the paddle blades too
deeply for the draft and depth of the hull. To place the shaft below
or through the lowest clamp member would require the shaft centerline
to be at least 3 feet below the upper deck, and this would contradict
Marestier. These questions indicate the importance of a scaled drawing
when deciding arrangement in the reconstruction of a ship under the
circumstances existing in the _Savannah_. Some models have been built
with the shaft below deck by disregarding the structural and
dimensional objections just outlined.

The question of the number of boilers originally was raised by
Braynard. A single boiler with double flues was a common boiler design
in American steamboats of 1818-1828, and this form of boiler is shown
in a number of Marestier's drawings. In general descriptions, "boiler"
and "boilers" are often used interchangeably, and this probably came
about through confusion over the number of flues. A "single boiler,
double flues," would thus become "boilers," apparently. The Russian
description specifically states there were two boilers, and gives
specific dimensions; though these probably are not exact. Either a
single boiler with double flues, or double boilers, each with a single
flue, could have been fitted in the reconstruction. However, fuel
space is affected and, with double boilers, the cross-sections of the
bunkers are reduced to about 20 square feet each; therefore, the
bunkers would have to become much longer. It may be said that the
boiler capacities in relation to dimensions of the steam cylinder as
indicated in the Russian description far exceed those given by
Marestier. As a practical matter of ship design, it seems that the
single boiler would have been a more logical fitting than double
boilers. The boilers were apparently of copper, and expensive.
However, this matter does not affect the hull-form and dimensions
established for the reconstruction, as the drawings proved. The
Russian description does show that the cargo space was extremely small
and practically nonexistent, indicating the effect of the large boiler
capacity.

All requirements that have been given can be approximated for space
necessary in the hull. It is established that the ship carried about
75 tons of coal and 25 cords of wood. The coal would take up from
about 1,700 to 1,850 cubic feet of space, and because of its weight it
would have to be bunkered alongside the boilers in the lower hold,
where there would be ample room, in the reconstruction, for two
bunkers, each in excess of 30 square feet in cross section and about
28 feet in length for a single boiler; one third more bunker space,
in length, would be required for double boilers. Such bunkers would
together hold about the required tonnage or cubic footage. The cord
wood would have required, say, two bunkers each of about 60 square
feet in cross section and 20 to 24 feet in length. Because of the
light weight, the cord wood could have been stowed in the wings on the
lower deck. There is room for the required stowage on the lower deck
in the reconstructed hull, leaving ample passages under either side of
the engine frame.

Marestier shows the location of the stack as being abreast the buckets
on the forward side of the paddle wheels, and it has been so placed in
the reconstruction. The deckhouse shown in Marestier's sketch extends
from a little forward of the mainmast to a little forward of the
paddle wheel axle. Probably this house actually covered the main hatch
and the crank-connecting-rod hatchway; therefore, Marestier shows it
too short. In the reconstruction, the deckhouse works out as between
17 and 18 feet long. Its width can only be guessed at, but it probably
would have been as wide as the opening cut in the upper deck for
machinery--say 11 feet. Perhaps this house contained the engineer's
stateroom and that of his assistant, as well as a ladderway to the
engine room. Doors on the sides of the house gave access to these
spaces and to the inboard shaft bearings. Bunker hatches were probably
forward of the house and outboard; these are taken as being about 2
feet 6 inches wide and 3 feet 6 inches long--large enough to allow
coal baskets to be lowered through them, as well as to allow cord wood
to be passed below.

A fidley hatch, in which the stack passed through the upper deck,
would have been a square hatch forward of the deckhouse. This hatch,
about 2-1/2 to 3 feet square, would have been fitted with an iron or
iron-bound fidley grating, with solid cover over. The stack could have
been swivelled, to bring the elbow to leeward. The upper portion of
the stack probably overlapped the lower portion at least 3 to 4 feet
above the fidley coaming, and the upper stack rested on a collar
bearing at the bottom of the overlap. Perhaps straps were bolted to
the side of the upper stack to take heaving bars athwartships, by
which two men could rotate the upper stack to turn the elbow to
leeward.

The bearings of the paddle wheel axle were perhaps four in number.
Two, one either side of the crank, may have been secured to the engine
frame just inside the deckhouse walls. Two were certainly outboard,
one on each side, fastened to the topsides, as shown in Marestier's
sketch of the wheel construction. The axle, probably square in cross
section, turned only at the bearings and wrist pin. It may have been
cast in two parts, each with a crank arm, and then joined by the wrist
pin, after the latter had been turned.

The wheels, shown in much detail in Marestier's sketches of the
engine, had flanged hubs to which the pivoted arms or spokes were
bolted. The fixed arms were integral parts of the outer hubs. The
inner flanges were cast with the hubs. To fold the blades, the fixed
arms were brought parallel to the rail, then the chain span between
each pair of the pivoted blades on top of the wheel was disconnected
and a pair of the blades, each way, were dropped on top of the fixed
arms, or blades, and lashed there. The wheel was then given a
half-revolution and the process repeated. The wheel could then have
been unshipped from the hub by sliding it off the square shaft end
after removing, let us suppose, a bolt or pin in the hub. Some
writers, like Collins, refer to a "jointed" or "hinged" axle, but
Marestier makes no mention of such an arrangement; indeed, his sketch
makes a "broken" axle impractical. The wheels could have been removed
from the axle and lifted aboard by use of tackles from the main yard
ends, or from a fore spencer gaff if it were made long enough.
However, as stated in the Russian description, the pivoted blades were
removed and stowed aboard, leaving only the two fixed arms in a
horizontal position outboard. This is a far more convenient treatment
than unshipping the whole wheel, as might be supposed from logbook
mention of "shipping" or "unshipping" the wheels.

There remain some other matters to be explored. The ship was fitted
with 32 passenger berths in staterooms. The passenger accommodations
for first class passengers in the early (1820-1830) packets were aft,
on the lower deck. The berths would have been about 6 feet 2 inches
long, and 2-1/2 feet wide. With berths placed athwartships and
allowing for cabin bulkheads, there would have remained a space at
least 10 to 12 feet wide down the centerline of the ship. This space
would have provided space for a mess table and a lounge area. Each
stateroom would then have been about 7 feet long fore and aft and
could have contained four athwartship berths. The space available
abaft the middle of the after cargo hatch would have allowed four
staterooms on each side and room at the extreme stern for a small
master's cabin, with toilets on each side. The cabin of the mates and
stewards, containing two berths each, would then have been about
abreast of the fore end of the after cargo hatch.

The galley would have been on the lower deck, just abaft the foremast
and forward of the fore cargo hatch. Food would have been carried aft
along the lower deck to the cabin, by way of passages on either side
of the engine frame. Cabin stores would have been in the hold below
the passenger accommodation, and here food, water, and other stores
would have been kept. A small cargo space, say of about 1,500 to 2,500
cubic feet, depending on bunkers, would have been possible in the
after hold. A fore cargo hold of about 1,000 to 1,500 cubic feet of
contents could be expected; forward of this would have been sail
locker, spare rigging gear, and a cable tier. On the lower deck, above
these spaces, a forecastle might have had berths for 12 to 14 men. The
cables and chain would be passed through the forecastle to the cable
tier below by chutes leading from cable scuttles in the upper deck
abaft the windlass on each side of the centerline of the ship.

The upper deck, abaft the mainmast, was reserved for use of the
passengers and officers of a packet. The low, 28-inch bulwarks were
insufficient to give proper protection there, so they were increased
by employing a 16-inch rail made of a cap supported by iron stanchions
above the main rail. This rail was closed in by a tarred netting
extending from the main rail upward to the quarter-deck rail cap and
running from the mainmast aft to the stern. This is plainly shown in
Marestier's sketch of the _Savannah_ as well as in some portraits of
early packet ships.

Though the passenger accommodations described were far from palatial
by modern standards, they were considered adequate in the 1820's and
for almost 15 years afterwards. The staterooms had no individual
toilets. Usually there were two small toilets, one on each side of the
stern cabin, at the extreme stern on the lower deck, in the quarters.
Usually the master's stateroom and toilet were to starboard, with a
public space and toilet to port. Sometimes toilets for the crew were
placed forward, on either bow abaft the catheads on the upper deck.
These were small cabinets accommodating one person each, and with the
door closed for privacy there was not room to stand. To enter the user
backed in, crouching. Such cabinets are not shown by Marestier, so
probably the crew used the headrails, as then was usual in merchant
vessels.

The hull-form to be chosen had to enclose all spaces that have been
described or listed. Since the _Savannah_ is known to have sailed
quite fast for her length, her lines had to equal those of the _Ohio_;
however, her smaller size and other factors indicated a somewhat
different hull-form, with harder turn of the bilge and a little less
deadrise. Due to the position of the machinery, the effect of its
weight and that of the necessary fuel had to be considered. The
midsection, or cross section of greatest area, would have to have been
only a little abaft the paddle wheel axle to allow proper trim with a
minimum of ballast. It was found by this criterion that the midsection
of the reconstructed hull was located in proportion to length in a
comparable manner to that of the _Ohio_. The run could have been made
about as long and easy, in proportion, as that of the _Ohio_;
likewise, the entrance could have been equally well designed for
sailing. Probably a little ballast--stone, gravel, sand or pig
iron--was required under the temporary flooring of the cargo holds,
most of it abaft the mainmast. Some ballast would normally have been
placed under the cabin stores, in the run. The boilers, engine, and
fuel weights were relatively important. To trim the ship, with minimum
ballast, the location of the machinery weights would have to have been
about as shown in the reconstruction drawings. It may be observed that
the engine and fuel weights are relatively great for the recorded hull
dimensions and resultant displacement limitation, indicating only a
small quantity of ballast would have been employed under any
circumstance.

Using the _Ohio_ as a guide, the midsection was formed to comply with
the dimensions of the boilers and with due regard to the small
dimensions of the _Savannah_. The result was a section having very
moderate rise of straight floor, carried farther out in proportion to
beam than in the _Ohio_, but with rather easy turn of the bilge and
moderate tumble-home in the upper topsides. This section has a form
found in plans of some American freighting ships of 1815-1830, but
with slightly slacker bilge.

The stern used in the reconstruction was the "square stern and round
tuck" seen in the _Ohio_ and referred to in the _Savannah's_ register.
Collins' "round stern," shown in Hudson's drawing, did not come into
use in America until about 1824, and then in naval ships only, so far
as existing plans of American vessels show.

[Illustration: Figure 6.--Reconstruction of the hull lines and general
arrangement of the _Savannah_.]

The reconstructed hull-form (figure 6) shows the man's bust figurehead
mentioned in the register, and the supporting head and trail mouldings
employed in the packets and other American ships of the period. The
figurehead may have had some relation to the original or intended name
of the ship prior to her purchase for conversion. No detailed
description has been found. A ship built to the drawing would at least
sail well and would carry her machinery, fuel, etc., as indicated in
the descriptions that exist. Whether or not the hull is precisely like
that of the original ship can never be determined until the original
plan, or model, is found. The proposed deck arrangement is shown in
dotted lines, in plan view.

[Illustration: Figure 7.--Reconstructed drawing of spar and outboard
profile of the _Savannah_. Dotted lines indicate working sails.
Standing rigging only is shown. Royal yards were set flying and were
crossed only when the ship was under full sail, never at anchor.

Notes.

All Masts, dia. = 1" for each 3'-0" of length.

3/4 dia. at trestletrees, 1/2 dia. at cap. Bowsprit same as mainmast,
Jibboom dia. = 1" for each 3'-0" of length, Flying Jibboom dia. = 1"
for each 5'-0" of length.

Pole 1/2 dia.

Yards, dia. = 1" for each 4'-0" of length, 1/2 or 3/7 dia. at end of
arms. Royal Yards, dia. = 1" for each 5'-0" of length.

Tops, fore & main, = 4/9 beam of ship, mizzen, 3/4 main top width.

Topmast crosstrees 3/5 of respective tops.

Trestletrees, depth = 11/12 of heel of topmast, thickness = 1/2 depth,
length = 1/2 width of top.

Running Rigging references:--

"Nautical Routine," Murphy & Jeffers, Ship Model Society of Rhode
Island, ed. 1933, (Higgins).

"Sheet Anchor," Darcy Lever, Charles E. Lauriat, ed. 1938.]

The rig shown in figure 7 is based upon Marestier's sketch and his
incomplete description. Since the ship had long royal poles on her
topgallant masts it is highly probable she crossed royal yards, like
the later packet ships. The proportions for the length of spars are
based upon the masting rules given by M'Kay[23] in 1839. The fore
spencer gaff, used as a crane for handling coal and cargo if the fore
or main yards were not available, may have been long enough to be used
also as a crane to handle the side wheels. The stack and mainstays may
have made the fore spencer sail a nuisance, so it may not have been
set while the vessel had her engine. In general, aside from the use of
the spencers on fore and main, the sail plan shown is of standard
proportions and arrangement of 1815-1825. For rigging, Darcy Lever's
book[24] was consulted. The drawing of the reconstructed _Savannah's_
sail plan agrees with contemporary sail plans of ships in the author's
collection. The log shows she set studding sails and had all the light
canvas of a ship of her type.

There remain a number of matters that do not directly concern the
reconstruction project but which are of sufficient technical
importance to warrant comment. Apparently the engine was mounted on a
wooden frame consisting of two large oak timbers on each side, say
about 10" × 10", one above the other, that probably supported iron
saddles in which the two cylinders rested. Between each pair would
have been the iron track, or channel, in which the ends of the
crosshead travelled, along the axis of the engine in elevation. These
frames measured about 9 feet 2 inches, outside to outside, and reached
from the beams of the upper deck on either side of the crank hatchway
to abaft the mainmast on the lower deck. It is probable that the fore
and after ends of the frame were supported by stanchions stepped on
the lower deck at the fore end and in the hold at the after end. The
crosshead was of iron and probably had shoes at the ends to work in
the tracks or channels in the frame. To help steady the crosshead,
these shoes probably were a foot or more long, for the loading of the
crosshead is spread out. The pitman to the paddle wheel shaft is to
starboard of the centerline of the engine; the steam cylinder piston
is slightly off center of the frame and crosshead; and the piston of
the air cylinder is close to the port engine frame. The steam lines to
the valves of the steam cylinder come in horizontally over the frames.
As has been mentioned, the frame may also have supported the paddle
wheel axle bearings at the crank.

This engine has been criticized by some writers (see Tyler's[25]
résumé of Gilfillan's[26] comments), but the _Savannah_ logbook shows
it gave no trouble, and should be compared with the logs of _Sirius_
and _Great Western_ as summarized by Tyler. The relatively slow piston
speed and small power put little strain on the moving parts. Tallow
was probably used for lubrication, being introduced into the valve
chest by pots on top of the casing, where radiated heat would melt the
tallow. From the valve chest the melted tallow was carried into the
cylinder, and from there probably passed into the jet condenser. No
doubt the lubricant became a sludge that had to be removed from the
condenser at least once every 48 hours. There is no real evidence
that the engine and boilers suffered any great strains; the operating
pressure of steam must have been low at all times. The boilers were
probably of very low efficiency and made steam slowly. Fuel
consumption was high, and, according to the logbook, the vessel ran
out of coal when she reached the English coast; however, she had
enough fuel left to steam up the Mersey to Liverpool, probably using
wood. At the time she ran out of coal she had used her engine about 80
to 83 hours. While this indicates a fuel consumption of almost a ton
per hour, it must be remembered that the intermittent operation of
the engine required expenditure of fuel to raise steam in cold boilers
over and over again. This was one of the weaknesses in the auxiliary
steamship, particularly, as in the case of the _Savannah_, when the
engine was used a number of times during a voyage without long periods
of continuous operation. Also, there is doubt that the vessel carried
as much as 75 tons of coal; she probably had no more than 55 to 60
tons aboard, if the figure of 1,500 bushels is correct. It is
impossible to establish exact weight-cubic measurements with the
available data.

Though the authorities quoted seem to agree that the _Savannah_ could
steam only 4-1/2 to 5-1/4 knots in smooth water, her logbook credits
her with 6 knots under steam alone at sea. However, this is probably
an approximation affected by current and sea rather than a truly
logged speed.

Judging by references in the logbook, the _Savannah_ carried one boat
on the stern davits. The davits, shown in Marestier's sketch, would
handle a boat of about 16 to 18 feet in length. At sea the boat was
probably carried on top of the deckhouse. The vessel obtained a new
boat during her European trip. It is probable that the lack of
passengers is why a second boat, which could have been stowed on the
deckhouse roof, was omitted.

There is no record of how the _Savannah_ was painted, except that the
logbook refers to her "bright" strake. Packets appear to have followed
what once was a Philadelphia practice in having a varnished band along
the topsides. Marestier's sketch indicates that there may have been
four or five bands of color, beginning at or a little above deck and
wide enough for the top band to be up about two-fifths the height of
the bulwarks. The hull was commonly black. The bands were red, white,
and blue and there was a "bright" strake, or alternate black and
varnished bands. These bands were about 3 to 5 inches wide. Sometimes
the "bright" band, as mentioned in the _Savannah_ logbook, was along
the topside just above and adjacent to the top of the wale, or belt of
thick planking, or might be the uppermost strake of the wale. Perhaps
the _Savannah_ had a wide bright band above the wale and multicolored
bands just above the deck. The headrails were painted black, with
mouldings at top and bottom of rails and with knees picked out with
very narrow bands of yellow, or "beading." The figurehead was then
commonly painted in natural colors, to suit the form of head if a
figure or a bust. The bowsprit and davits probably were black. Deck
structures were probably white, the neck natural, with waterways and
inside of bulwarks white, the stack black, and rail caps varnished.

In this period it was unusual to copper a wooden ship before launch,
so it is doubtful that the _Savannah_ was copper sheathed. Since her
voyage occurred during a period of financial depression, it is
probable that her bottom was "white" (tallow and verdigris).

The reconstruction described herein produced a plan for a model that
complied to the fullest extent with all the known dimensions and
descriptions of the _Savannah_ that have yet been found. The result
showed that the United States National Museum's old model could not be
altered to agree with the known features of the _Savannah_ and that a
new model was therefore necessary. So that the new model would be
comparable to other models of early American steamers, existing or
intended, in the Watercraft Collection, it was constructed on the
scale of one-quarter inch to the foot. The new model (figs. 2, 8, and
9) is now on exhibition at the Smithsonian Institution.

[Illustration: Figure 8.--Stern-quarter view of the new model of the
_Savannah_, showing one wheel partially folded and the iron frames for
canvas wheel-boxes in place.]

[Illustration: Figure 9.--Bow-quarter view of the new model of the
_Savannah_, showing deck arrangement details.]




FOOTNOTES:


[1] Carl W. Mitman, _Catalogue of the Watercraft Collection in the
United States National Museum_, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 127,
1923.

[2] Jean Baptiste Marestier, _Mémoire sur les Bateaux à Vapeur de
Etats-Unis d'Amérique_, Paris, 1823.

[3] A memorandum dated April 20, 1899, in the manuscript file on the
watercraft collection shows that the Museum had both the rigged model
and the original logbook at that time. Also in the collection were a
coffee urn and miniature portrait of the _Savannah's_ captain, Moses
Rogers, that had been presented to him abroad; later, these items were
returned to the donor. A cup and saucer belonging to Captain Rogers
also had been given to the Museum, and they are now in its historical
collection.

[4] Robert Greenhalgh Albion, _Square Riggers on Schedule_, Princeton,
New Jersey, 1938. Between the years 1817 and 1837 the yard of Fickett
and Crockett also operated at various times under the name of S. & F.
Fickett and the name of Fickett and Thomas. The yard appears to have
specialized in the construction of coastal packet ships, because only
4 ocean packets, against 24 coastal packets, were built by the various
partnerships in which Fickett was a member.

[5] L. M'Kay, _The Practical Shipbuilder_, New York, 1839.

[6] Howard I. Chapelle, _The Baltimore Clipper_, Salem, Massachusetts,
1930, pp. 112-134.

[7] Sidney Withington, translator, _Memoir on Steamboats of the United
States of America by Jean Baptiste Marestier_, Mystic, Connecticut,
1957.

[8] _Ibid._, pl. 7, figs. 32, 33, 35.

[9] _Ibid._, pl. 3, fig. 10.

[10] Geo. Henry Preble, _A Chronological History of the Origin and
Development of Steam Navigation, 1543-1882_, Philadelphia, 1883.

[11] John H. Morrison, _A History of American Steam Navigation_, New
York, 1930.

[12] David Budlong Tyler, _Steam Conquers the Atlantic_, New York and
London, 1939.

[13] S. C. Gilfillan, _Inventing the Ship_, New York, 1935.

[14] Charles Frederich Partington, _An Historical and Descriptive
Account of the Steam Engine_, London, 1822.

[15] J. Elfreth Watkins, "The Log of the _Savannah_," in _Report of
the U.S. National Museum for the Year Ending June 30, 1890_, 1891, pp.
611-639.

[16] Previously, the author had assumed there was one boiler with two
flues.

[17] _Op. cit._ (footnote 4).

[18] William Morgan and Augustin Creuze, eds., _Papers on Naval
Architecture_, London, n. d., no. 12, p. 387.

[19] Letter from Carl C. Cutler to the author, November 24, 1958.

[20] _Op. cit._ (footnote 5).

[21] Withington, _op. cit._ (footnote 7), pl. 9, figs. 55, 56.

[22] Report of Malcolm Bell, Jr., and Frank Braynard.

[23] M'Kay, _op. cit._ (footnote 5).

[24] Darcy Lever, _Sheet Anchor_, London, 1808-1811. (Reprint,
Providence, Rhode Island, 1930.)

[25] David Budlong Tyler, _Steam Conquers the Atlantic_, New York and
London, 1939.

[26] S. C. Gilfillan, _Inventing the Ship_, New York, 1935.