A perusal of the foregoing shows that, while almost everything else has been commented on, no mention, whatever, is made of the fact that the rig of the vessel did not permit of sail being set aft. In view of the great length of the _Alert_—as compared with her depth—the above fact constituted, in the opinion of the compiler of this book, a very grave defect. Further, no vessel, whatever her length, or whether steamer or sailing ship, should be classed by the Government officials as fit to go outside Port Phillip Heads, unless she is rigged in a suitable manner to enable her to carry sail aft, as well as foreward. No doubt in these “hurry skurry” days the tendency of the time is to make steam machinery take the place of sail, but until man can control wind and waves, machinery can never wholly supersede canvas. The latter is not only required to steady a steamship in a seaway, but is indeed an actual necessity during emergencies brought about by either a breakdown of machinery, or stress of weather. It is not so very long since a large steamer, the _Age_, was tossing about, for a week or so, in Bass’ Straits, as helpless as a log, because her machinery had met with a mishap, and she was unable to set canvas enough to keep her side down, let alone bring her into port! Moreover, it may be added that there is scarcely a single sea-going steamer, which, at the present time, carries _half_ the canvas she ought to. In the interests of life and property this is a matter that should be carefully seen to in future, and, if need be, enforced by legal enactment. Steam power is very well in its place, When water’s smooth and the ship’s in a race, But when sea’s rough and wind blowing a gale, There’s certainly greater safety in sail. [Illustration: S.S. ALERT BEFORE ALTERATIONS.] Battling with the Lawyers. “Let us consider the reason of the case; for nothing Is law that is not reason.”—_Sir John Powell._ KILPATRICK v. HUDDART, PARKER & CO., LTD. On Monday, the 11th February, 1895, in the First Civil Court, Melbourne, before his Honour, Sir Hartley Williams and a jury of six, an action was commenced in which the plaintiff, Mrs. Lucy Kilpatrick, widow of John Kennedy Kilpatrick, sued the defendants, Messrs. Huddart, Parker and Co., to recover £3000 damages for the loss of her husband. Mr. C. A. SMYTH, Mr. Box, and Mr. W. H. Williams (instructed by Messrs. Gaunson and Wallace) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Purves Q. C. and Mr. Mitchell (instructed by Messrs. Malleson, England, and Stewart) for the defendants. Mr. Purves requested at the outset that all witnesses be ordered out of court, and his Honour, Mr. Justice Williams, made the necessary order, except in the case of two experts whose evidences would not relate to the facts of the trial. THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE.