them as greater risks than those of the keel variety. A marine underwriter is generally shrewd and businesslike, and keeps a close watch on the statistics of maritime losses. If it were proven by the wreck returns that centerboard vessels were more prone to succumb to the perils of the raging main than the craft not built with a movable fin, the inference is obvious, the premium of insurance would be graded to meet the risk.
I think that this argument will appeal to all people of common sense, and will settle the question of the relative safety and seaworthiness of the two types. But there is this to be said on the subject, that very much difference exists between a craft constructed for carrying coal and another built for the purpose of pleasure. I think it may be averred without error that the early centerboard yachts were, as a rule, modeled by shipwrights who had a due regard for the factor of initial stability as well as strong hulls scientifically put together. But, step by step, a school of naval architecture came into vogue, so far as centerboard yachts were concerned, in which most of the sound principles of yacht designing were totally ignored. Mr. W. P. Stephens, in an interesting and scholarly paper read before the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers in 1895, well says:
"The centerboard lent itself as a willing accessory to the sacrifice of that depth which is essential to a safe range
