architect, but also a practical shipwright, and therefore, his scathing arraignment of the centerboard type must be taken as emanating from his ripe judgment and long experience. It must be remembered, however, that he is a pronounced advocate of the keel type, and has long waged war against the centerboard. So far as his denunciation applies to the vicious and exaggerated variety I agree with him, heart and soul. But I am not prepared to condemn the whole class because of the glaring imperfections to be found in examples.
It must be borne in mind that without the aid of the centerboard the pastime of yachting would be impracticable on innumerable sheets of shallow water, both salt and fresh, to be found in North America. With that point in view, the abolition of the vicious element in the type, and its succession by a sound and seaworthy class of pleasure craft, should be the aim of all yachtsmen. And since the year 1880 great strides have been made in that direction. I have witnessed with joy the decadence and abolition of the "sandbagger," a craft of immense beam, shallow draft, and big sail plan. The sandbagger was the ideal racing machine of twenty five years ago. Its place has been taken by the fin-keel. I wonder if the fin-keel is destined to be succeeded by the double-huller, such as Dominion, which made her début in Canada in 1898?
