than when measured in accordance with the Suez or American rules. While this is an extreme variation, vessels often vary as much as 10 per cent in gross tonnage when measured by different rules. This is due partly to the fact that the rules of the Suez Canal Co. and of the United States measure certain superstructure spaces which the British and German rules exempt from measurement, but the variations in gross tonnage result mainly from the exemption by the British and German rules, and the measurement under the Suez and American rules, of the spaces between the uppermost full-length deck-which is called the "shelter" deck-and the deck next below, which is usually called the "upper" deck. Under a decision rendered in 1875 by the House of Lords, British admeasurers must exempt from measurement and gross tonnage the between-deck space under the "shelter" deck when that deck has a "tonnage opening,' and when the bulkheads subdividing the between-deck space has the openings stipulated in the Board of Trade regulations. The "tonnage opening" by which exemption from measurement is secured for the large between-deck space is in reality a technical opening which can be so covered when the vessel is at sea as to protect the space under the "shelter" deck from the weather and the sea. Dry cargo can be, and is, carried in the between-deck space under the "shelter" deck. The Suez rules, and usually the American rules, include the space within gross tonnage. The Panama rules follow the Suez regulations in considering as closed-in, and thus to be included in gross tonnage, the space under so-called shelter decks. A history and criticism of existing rules concerning the measurement and exemption of spaces in superstructures and under "shelter" decks is presented in Chapter XI of the report. The larger part of the deduction made from gross tonnage to ascertain net tonnage is for the spaces occupied by propelling machinery and fuel. Under the Suez rules, deductions other than for power and fuel may amount to only 5 per cent of the gross tonnage. There are three rules or methods by which the space to be deducted for propelling machinery and fuel is determined. One method is to measure the space actually occupied by the engine and boiler rooms (including designated portions of the spaces framed in around the funnels and for the admission of light and air to those rooms), by the shaft trunks or tunnels (in the case of screw-propelled vessels), and by the fixed bunkers or compartments set aside for fuel. This method is not readily applicable to vessels that have coal bunkers with movable partitions. Another method of making propelling-power deduction is to allow for the space occupied by machinery and fuel a fixed percentage of the entire space included in gross tonnage. For most vessels-i. e., for vessels having screw propellers and having propelling-machinery spaces comprising more than 13 and less than 20 per cent of the space included in gross tonnage the British rules allow a deduction for propelling power and for fuel of 32 per cent of the gross tonnage. The adherence of Great Britain to this percentage rule has caused most other countries to adopt the rule. A third method of determining the space to be deducted for propelling machinery and fuel is to assume a percentage relationship between machinery and fuel spaces and to deduct for power and fuel the space occupied by propelling machinery increased by a fixed percentage. This is the method followed in the "Danube rule," which calls for the measurement of the spaces occupied by the engine and boiler rooms, including designated portions of the framed-in lightand-air and funnel spaces, and, in the case of screw-propelled vessels, of the shaft trunk or trunks. To the volume of the machinery spaces thus measured, there is added, to allow for fuel, 75 per cent for vessels with screws and 50 per cent for ships with paddle wheels. This method of making propelling-power deductions is equally applicable to vessels with or without fixed fuel compartments. The measurement rules of the European Commission of the Danube and those of the Suez Canal Co. follow the Danube rule in making propelling-power deductions; and give vessel owners the alternative, in the case of vessels having fixed fuel compartments, of having the spaces deducted that are actually occupied by or set aside for fuel bunkers or tanks and by propelling machinery. 61861-13-2 The major share of ocean vessels consists of freight steamers, and most freight vessels are so constructed that the engine and boiler rooms (including shaft trunks and air and funnel spaces) occupy spaces equal to slightly more than 13 per cent of the space included in gross tonnage. If the propelling machinery spaces in a freight steamer occupied 13.2 per cent of the gross tonnage, the deduction for machinery and fuel under the Danube rule would be 23.1 (13.2x1.75) per cent and under the British percentage rule 32 per cent. In the case of an average-sized modern freight steamer of 6,000 tons gross tonnage, the propelling power deduction under the percentage rule would, if the engine room occupied 13.2 per cent of the space included in gross tonnage, be 534 tons more than under the Danube rule. The deductions allowed for fuel spaces by the Danube rule are liberal, experience showing that vessel owners seldom prefer to have deductions made by the actual measurement of fuel spaces. The Panama rules, for reasons given in detail in this report, have adopted with slight modification the rule for propelling power deductions contained in the measurement codes of the European Commission of the Danube and of the Suez Canal Co.-i. e., the Danube rule with the alternative of the actual measurement of spaces occupied by fixed bunkers or fuel tanks. Chapter IX of the report contains a history and criticism of rules concerning deductions for propelling power. During recent years numerous ocean vessels have been equipped with internal-combustion engines. Such engines are of different kinds, some of which occupy less space than is required by steam engines of like power, while all types of internal-combustion engines consume less fuel than do steam engines of equal power. It was necessary to decide whether the same rule as to propelling power deduction should be applied to vessels having internal-combustion engines as to vessels equipped with steam machinery. The question is discussed with some detail in Chapter X upon propelling power deductions for vessels equipped with oil and gas engines. It was decided that the development of marine internal-combustion engines had not yet proceeded far enough to warrant the application to vessels equipped with such engines of a special rule, for propelling power deduction, different from the rule applied to other vessels. Vessels will be measured for Panama tonnage certificates, not only by American admeasurers at the several ports of the United States but also, and much more largely, by foreign admeasurers at foreign ports. In order to insure the fair treatment of all vessels and to protect the Panama Canal revenues against losses, it is important that admeasurers the world over shall give the Panama rules the same interpretation. To assist in bringing this about, the measurement rules have been made as definite and specific as possible, and the final chapter of the report is devoted to a brief explanation of the main features of the rules. The Suez Canal Co. and the governments whose officials measure vessels for Suez tonnage certificates have found it advisable to issue special directions for the guidance of admeasurers. In the documents appended to this report will be found the instructions of the British Board of Trade to surveyors who measure vessels for Suez Canal tonnage; also the instructions of the German Government for the application of the Suez rules; and the memorandum of the Suez Canal Co. on the application of the rules of 1904 relative to the measurement of superstructures. It is hoped that it may not be necessary either for the Panama Canal administration or for the vessel measurement authorities of foreign countries to issue special instructions for the guidance of admeasurers in applying the Panama rules and in issuing Panama tonnage certificates. Should, however, experience in the application of the rules show the necessity for special instructions for the guidance of admeasurers, the discussion of the rules contained in the report should make the preparation of such instructions comparatively easy. It has long been realized that the international unification of vessel measurement rules would be of advantage to commerce and shipping. Uniformity in rules and in measurement practice would give a common meaning to tonnage as stated in the certificates of vessels under all flags, and the owners of vessels would not be burdened with the expense and possible delays connected with any measurement subsequent to that necessarily given ships at the time of their registry by the country whose flag they carry. Each vessel's tonnage as stated in its certificate of registry could be accepted at all canals in collecting tolls and at all ports as a basis for tonnage taxes, towage, dockage, and other port charges. Any ship using the Suez Canal must carry both its national registry certificate and a Suez tonnage certificate. The use of the Panama Canal will require another certificate. This requirement is, however, of minor consequence as compared with other results of the lack of international uniformity in measurement rules. If the tonnage of a vessel as stated in the national certificate is not accepted by the authorities of the foreign port entered by the ship and admeasurerers make additions to the vessel's tonnage, delays, bickerings, and appeals by the vessel's owners from decisions of the surveyor of the port may result; while, if the tonnage of registry is accepted without correction, the charges imposed upon shipping may be unfair as between different types of vessels, unjust as between the owners of vessels and the owners of docks, wharves, and other port facilities, and inequitable as between the different countries to which tonnage or "light dues" are paid. These disadvantages are to some extent, but only partly, overcome by agreements among the leading commercial countries to accept at each other's ports tonnage figures as stated in national certificates. When the tonnage of a vessel is much less than it would be under the laws of the country of a port the vessel may enter, it is usual for the measurement authorities to measure, and add to the tonnage, spaces that were exempted in measuring the vessel for registry. American admeasurers, for example, frequently make additions to the registered tonnage of British, German, and French vessels. This is done because our navigation laws include in the gross tonnage of some vessels spaces in superstructures and under the so-called "shelter" deck that may be exempted from measurement under the rules of Great Britain and Germany. The desirability of unifying measurement rules was brought to the attention of the commercial powers of Europe as early as 1861 by the European Commission of the Danube—an international body that had been given charge, in 1856, of the improvement of the navigation of the mouth and lower course of the Danube River and had been given authority to collect tolls to meet the expenses of the improvements. This suggestion of the Commission of the Danube was followed in 1862 by a memorandum, prepared by the British Board of Trade, "pointing out the importance of the uniform system of tonnage measurement." This memorandum was submitted by the British foreign office to the French Government and negotiations followed, which, however, did not lead to any definite results before 1870, when the troublous decade of the sixties culminated in the Franco-Prussian War, which temporarily brought commercial negotiations to an end. It was thought that the opening of the Suez Canal in the latter part of 1869 might lead to the international unification of tonnage rules. A commission appointed in 1868 by de Lesseps to consider questions connected with the operation of the Suez Canal recommended that charges for the use of the canal should be levied upon the tonnage stated in each vessel's official papers (its net register tonnage) until uniform rules had been adopted by the maritime powers. The international unification of rules did not follow as expected. Moreover, the Suez Canal Co., finding that its revenues were inadequate to meet its capital charges, decided to collect tolls from July 1, 1872, upon the gross instead of the net tonnage of vessels. The opposition which this aroused on the part of the shipping interests and of the commercial countries of Europe led to the convening by the Sultan of Turkey of the International Tonnage Commission, which met at Constantinople in September, 1873. The international commission, though convened primarily to decide what tonnage should be the basis of Suez tolls and what rate of charges the Suez Canal Co. should impose, considered, and the following December reported upon, the "question of tonnage generally." It drafted rules which it expected would be adopted not only by the Suez Canal Co. but also by the maritime countries represented at Constantinople. As is explained in Chapter XII of this report, which discusses the past efforts for, and the future possibilities of, international uniformity in tonnage and measurement, it is probable that the expectation of the International Tonnage Commission of 1873 would have been realized had not the efforts made by the British Board of Trade in 1874 and again in 1881 to secure the adoption by Parliament of the measurement rules framed at Constantinople been defeated by the opposition of the shipowners of Great Britain, who objected to the increase that would be made in the net tonnage of vessels-the tonnage upon which shipping charges of most kinds are levied. The opening of the Panama Canal might well be made the occasion of another earnest effort to secure the unification of tonnage rules. The Panama rules and those framed for the Suez Canal Co. by the International Tonnage Commission are based upon sound principles common to both sets of rules. It would not seem impossible for the leading commercial countries to agree upon a single code of measurement rules carrying out the principles that underly the Panama and Suez rules and embodying the essential provisions common to those two codes. If that were done, there ought to be no great difficulty in harmonizing the minor differences in the Panama and Suez rules and in making the rules thus harmonized the single measurement code of the world. |