The New York herald., 1870-03-29
Another Letter from Mr.. Ashbury, Of
the Cambria, to Mr. Douglas,
of the Sappho.
Fresh Propositions for a Series
OF Races.
Reply of MIR. Douglas Accepting
Two of the Series.
MR.. Ashbury to MIR. Douglas.
No. o EASTERN TERRACE, BRIGHTON,
Feb. ~ 1870.

DEAR sIR-Haying simply acknowledged pos
session OF your favor OF the 10th inst, replying to
my proposals OF the 3lst January, the latter as an
answer 10 your challenge to all England. of tue 9Th
January, 1870, now have the pleasure TO reply in
detail 10 she said communication OF the l0th.
Paragraph seG0nd-You herein express your "a,
gret and surprise thar declined the Cherboug
course, and ended thus: And refuse TO give the
Sappho any race al all. except ovef courses OF
your own selection, and under conditions OF your
own dlctaton.n
In ar .ennetts letter to me OF October, 1869, yon
vii nni tue following --"As you have now recon
sidered your refusal ani challenge The Dauntless to
an Atlantic race accept your proposition, and ex-
erclslng the right OF the challenged party name
the course NC,
As this gentleman Ia the Vice Commodore OF the
New York Yacht Cub, he doubtless writes with
authority as to the Custom OF American yachtmen
to consider the challenged party haylng the right
TO namo the course Assuming TINS to be the case
am the challeged person, not you, consequent on
your letter ol 10th January 1893, requesting one or
more races with the Cambria; that from an
American point OF view / am quite IN order 10 hav
ing suggested the several courses, and believe
equally SO in declining any course which might give
the Sappho undue advantages As already explained.
] had no intention TO quibDie on The poInt as
70 who the challenger. but suggested
three distinct series OF races, which, including
what may be herein suggested, are ia my opinion
fair, equitable propositions. ana In the event. OF
race resulting am quite prepared to leave yacht
men and the public OF England and America 10 form
an unpi eJudiced opinion as to the fairness of my
proposals
In rere ring to the course round the Isle OF Wight
you say thus paragraph lour-"Would it not be
natural 10 suppose tat II you really considered the
Cambria as much superior to the Sappho as you
have more tnan once boastei, you would your
SELF prefer SOME new course which TO assert tnat
superiDuyP
In your letter to me OF the 9Th of January 1870,
you give an extract OF letter Of mine 70 you The
Esd OF September, 1862 thus:'-'As regards the pro-
posed races, Cambria and Sappho. you aware
that did not challenge you, aud simply con-
sened as an act OF courtesy to give you the Isle of
Wight race and two longer ones, do not
profess 10 be able TO pit my vessel against yours for
ocean purposes" And in my letter OF the 3otn jan
uary, declining the Cherbourg course, practically
admitted the Sappho would be the fastest vessel
the WIND although trerein expressed an opinon
tnat the Cambria might be the best a wind. and
under the usual time allowances ol England or
America think suGn mtaat be the case. have
never used the word ''poasted" veroaily IN
writing, as the above extract would appear to
connrm.
Paragraph Tenlh-neren you say my letter Of the
JlSb was the nfst lAtilnhl0u Ol
allowance 10 ne giyen 10 the Cambria by he sappho
from wnich tiufd parties would Conclude taat was
endeavorln9 10 impose coauton upon yoa con
tIaiy To the yachuns regulations OF England and
America Conseqlent upOh Your request ol the istl
January 1869, replied on tue 1st Feoruary, Offering
you series No. oI my letter VI 3ist January, 1870
aud saiu, The condltlons, rs you observe, can De
arranged on your arrival ia thu country"
What conditohsf Certainly NOT the courses TO be
sailed over because thJse clearly defined. The
conollioa7 referred 90 date for sailing, question OF
measurement and Gus omar time aliowauce lne
POINT ! unreseIyedy waived, and agreed 10 accept
tne New ORR Yacht Ciuo rule instead oi tae Koyal
Thames Yacnt Clu0 TO preye1t anv question or con-
tr0versy, thereby making the time allowance greatly
IN yolIr favor as compared wltn tne latter RUE As
TO the time question, Rear Commodore Of the
New YORK lacht Ciup you mus know IL IS the rale
for large ssels 10 give small ones time allowance.
Rule two OF your own sailiug regulations says
'.lme snail Do allowed Tor differences of measure.
ment according TO tne annexed tables at the cad OF
Sa1llng aegg atious.h
Mr J. b. Van Deusen OF New York, wrote fullg to
Che NEW Yoa6 HERALD on the measurement qaos-
Non Two extracts gave thus:--
FtTSt-ide question OF InehiaremanJ and tom
mage of yachts, and 10 equalize, Us nearly as p0ssi
bic, b3 proGcr allowance oi time ana the duerenee
IN tnei, respective Sizes has been the saoicct OF
much DISCUSSION since the earliest contest in
yachting
3ureueD Dts for allowances of Tune between yachts OF
different sizes nave beel ad0Dsed ironl time To time
By Lhe Sew YORK Iaeut Cub noae OF which seea 30
have given entire sstisacuon At 1rst Gluie
allowed on tons measure. ut after when ru
was alopJed Dy @hiG. Time Tas allowed Gon5 OF
displaeem sut obtained W actual weight OF vessels,
and asan the allowance OF tilne Was based on area
OF or the vessels propel ing power Without
regard TO tnsir comparative SIZE c., &C.
In the New YORK SDatt NJ o"e Times o. MAY /,
1862 there appeared a long ana able letter on time
allowances, hon which extract the folio wing
'WhaL ~ Tie OBJECT sought for By sYs,em OF allow
sncess What advantages mas one yacht over another
AzeS, but OF the same model are compared all VIII
admi tuat the larger VIII be tue faster, and Just
much time as Bne e&celS by so much ought she TO
allow for; both peing OF the same modei every ad-
vantage she has Is owing 70 something ouGside of
node. l. z, size. We sup ait, then, thai size Is
advansage Irrespective o model, ana believe tnis
proposition wtl be unive sally adn,itted. Our EGG
and ae on tnis SIDE OF the stian7c lain tae sane >,
I hinS naro HON conc osv.ty s.-vn 20 goa a1d
tuat mere was noGnIlg Unusual unreasonable
inreGaiting time allowance especially after giving
up important poin. as The mode OF measurement
AS regards your aiinsion TO remark | made at
the Royal Victoria Yacht uuD dinner, wnen speaK-
tng OF the Sappho taS reported ID Fed oil March
H. 1869, that II was wiling TO forego the difference
IN tonnage between thenl.n 1 admit having SAID
80; but Sappho oi 1870 IS very different vessel
the Sappho oil 1888. having since the latter year
been increased TWO minutes SIX seconds at the
wafer line, fifteen twenty tons 0f Leaf IN
stien her. and spared ANA canyassed TO insure her
victory over yacns OF mall her tonnage; ana seeing
the Cimoria only sailed tle Ssppno round the Isie or
Wight, BOW waive the tne question: for sucn race
as the Sappno was deeated Ia, and herein offer TO
Paragraph l2.-ln this your concluding para.
graph, you slato:--"l must be allowed TO say th,t
any utiler remarks iron you On tne ack OF courage
inappropriate
The courage Of Americans either on land or water
rs as undouoted by ne as equally so by otnefs such
dispaiaalng worn has never been sal or written
by me, alrecuy OF incorrectly. ihe paragraph IN my
letter OF the 3lsl danaary which appears TO nave
caused your continents simply tnus:-"If you
decnne the race round tae Isle Of Wight SHAH con
cluie tnat you 90 30 from your be taat the SAP pho
would slana no chlnce m turntng u Wlpdyard
against tle CamDria.r
To tnis opinion adhere, and tnink on reflection
you viii mad you nave paid Yourself a poor conplI-
inent 10y Assuming your cUurage would be douuted
because you dad not choose TO eal Tue lsc or
Wight
No, one series On letter OF 3lst Januaryl.-You de-
cline, as implied by no reference thereto.
No. two sefies--Ditto.
No. tnfee series OF three triangular raceH-gou
say you win accept providing tnere is no time allow
ance.
am sorry cannot on this point meet your views
partly i0r the same reasons when uslinel my de-
cliniog the Cherbsarg course. In certain winds you
would hsve the wind free over two sides OF the trl-
angle, tWSQty miles eacu, against thirteen mes,
the oase In fSeor OF the Gambia. cannot there