LETTERS Sea Witch Is Challenged There are three kinds of sailing ships we should be building today, both to preserve our maritime heritage and to insure our maritime future. First, there are vessels such as the Dove and Pride of Baltimore, built of wood and unabashedly old-fashioned. These are floating museum pieces, making no pretense of being able to pay their own way. They are a delight to the eye and to the soul. Although such vessels are relatively small, with accordingly modest costs of construction, operation and maintenance, it is a struggle to raise the funds to build them and keep them sailing. Second, we should be building squarerigged vessels of traditional design but of modern materials. These are for use in sail training programs, so no consideration need be given to operation with an economically small crew. Indeed, to accomplish the objectives of a sail training program it is desirable to have a fairly complex rig with no mechanical aids. To keep operating budgets in reason it is equally desirable to have hulls of steel, fiberglass or ferrocement; synthetic cordage and sails, etc. Third, we should at least be planning, if not yet building, commercial sailing ships. The concept of such vessels appears more realistic with each OPEC price hike. The first two kinds of vessels need not earn their keep. The nature of their roles makes it practical to rely on various kinds of subsidy to build and sail them. No one expects a museum or a school to cover all its cost through admission fees or tuition. We recognize that such institutions serve a public purpose and subsidize their operations with government, foundation and corporate grants. A commercial sailing ship rnust be able to pay its own way. To do this, it must be able to carry cargo at a competitive ton/ mile cost. I submit that a replica of Sea Witch will not be able to do so. The type of sailing ship most likely to be economically viable is a bulk carrier, designed and built to take full advantage of today's materials and technology. I doubt that such vessels will have much in common with traditional sailing ships. There is only one way in which I can conceive of the Sea Witch project being viable. Just as the City of Baltimore undertook Pride as a goodwill and public relations program, the United States could underwrite the building and operation of an authentic American clipper. Given the limited funds available for maritime historic preservation and sail 4
training, I'm not sure that even this approach would be desirable. "Project Sea Witch" is a grand and romantic notion, but as presently conceived it is ill-advised. PETER VANADIA President, Young America Marine Education Society . .. And Defended Beyond the well researched practicabilities of Sea Witch financing herself, there is a good and true historical and archaeological justification for the reconstruction. How can someone condemn from the protective shade of the groves of academe this very large effort to reconstruct, with near absolute authenticity, a fine example of maritime history? The comparison of replicas to "Roman copies of Greek statues" is fatuous enough to be dismissed except perhaps that it casts unjustified doubt upon some commendable recent examples of serious replication. Such examples are extremely useful tools in historical research and reconstructive experimental archaeology. We might also learn much in the technology of handling large sailing cargo vessels through a Sea Witch experience. It is certainly cheaper and promises more in its own relevancy than the estimated required "tens of millions" in a Michiganbased experiment in commercial sail. THOMAS GILLMER Annapolis, Maryland
A wonderful reply to A. Steven Toby's letter (SH 14) criticizing the Sea Witch project exists in John Ewald's comments on the Ship Trust in SH 13 . Mr Ewald said: " . . . it is adventures like this (the recently renewed interest in commercial sailing vessels) that point out the need for preserving the knowledge, experience, and skills of our maritime past. We need not reinvent the sailing ship; instead today' s efforts and technology should be applied to improve upon the vast lessons already learned."
I hope that Mr. Toby will reread Melbourne Smith's article on Project Sea Witch and then reflect on the many object lessons the history of commercial sail
has to teach us. He might also reflect that universities have never had much to do with commercial sailing ships, and that if "tens of millions of dollars" had been required to develop the clipper ship (taking into account the devalued dollar), sail never would have paid for itself. C. E. ATWATER Annapolis, Maryland The "tens of millions" to be spent by computer types to re-invent the sailing ship will never produce the kind of organic sea-learning so beautifully reported by Stanley Gerr in his story about Tusitala, "How to Keep the Sea" (SH 14, p. 45). J. TARR
Melbourne Smith, Director of Project Sea Witch (SH 13), responds: "The idea ¡ that modern technology should replace historical research and that all sail ships should compete on a ton/mile basis is about as reasonable as demanding that aquariums produce fish at the same cost as fish markets. "If Sea Witch creates her own market, Ifail to see how she will be a burden to anyone. The seas will still be open to those wanting 'tens of millions' for sail research in Michigan, and to those who pursue more immediately realistic goals like sailing the schooner John F. Leavitt with paying cargoes. "If Sea Witch is built, she will sail to reclaim our maritime heritage and offer training at sea while supporting herself. She need not compete with other ventures under sail. Her supporters feel, as I do, that she can only help such ventures, by drawing new attention and interest to them, as on a much smaller scale, Pride of Baltimore does in her sailing. " Further comment is welcome. If Sea Witch is challenged, she must meet that challenge, like her prototype, the clipper of 1845. -ED. Fraser Was the Boy to Make Her Go! I'm sure ED will receive a few letters of correction on his answer to J.M. Kennaday's letter in SH 14, in which he has Captain Land commanding the Sea Witch on her 97-day passage to California. Captain George Fraser commanded her from 1849 until 1855, covering all three of her California runs. Captain Land did not take command until her ninth and last voyage, when she left New York on April 5, 1855 and put into Rio with the body of Captain Fraser who had been murdered by his mate. Captain Land was then put in command to make the passage to Hong Kong, and was SEA HISTORY, FALL 1979