The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-06-22
IConlinu.d 6om 6r,l pass.l

sectional dock comparison Of merits. Inns has
been repeatedly denied, and not particle OF PROOF
has been adduced 10 support IT, 80 Tar RON ths
being the case the certificates laid before the House
from the whole undivided slipping Interest Of New
York the only practical comparison OF me msr
It's OF the two plans has been had and which forms the
very best test the world prove concusiyely that the
decision on such comparison is decidedly 10 favor
OF a sectional dock. The only other practical test
that has been made is between this dock in New
York and the balance dock at Hayre, above alluded
10, which has resulted also according TO the certif
cate Of the owners Of tbs Havre packets, in favor Of
the sectional dock. ''Ra'
come now, Mr.. Chairman, to consider the rela-
tive cost Of the two plans Of dock. -.
The cost OF the sectional dock, all u gon, Tor SHIPS
Of the line light is estimated at S350OOo ana io'
them with their armament, s444OOO' Inc cost o'
balance dock Of thai size, Whistler WIN or
without their armament, is stated 70 oe tzSo,VoY'
stated and spseifsd 10 De GOOD This is gross fraud
on the government, for the dock is presented a. Il u
were OF solid IRON in all the papers that strike the
public eve; and the fact Of It's being really only about
half of iron and the rest Of wood Is smothered up In
long catalogue Of specifications and figures In an OBJ
scure report not likely TO be seen by any body, II
the sectional dock were to be constructed even one
fourth of wood, am authorized TO say that its cost
would fall below that Of the balance dock.
The cost Of sectional dock OF wood is estimated
at S245 800, and Of a balance dock OF wood at
s244 400, both for ships Of the line loaded. The
difference Of cost is therefore traing The sectional
dock for ships Of the line Invested Of their arma-
ment Is offered al slS5,OOO, and the balance dock
for them in the same condition at S244,OOOi show
ing that for ships IN this condiion-the only eond
ton in which they would be raised as stated by the
Navy Depanmenl--the sectional dock cost So, 400
less than the balance dock Of the same capacity.
have thus, Mr. Chairman, laid before you and
this House summary view OF the question Of dry
doeks, the claims OF the Philadelphia yard, the IN
srructOns Of my constituents the testimonals IN IA
vor the sectional plan, the great vantages which
it possesses and the lsehoods Of which il has been
the subject. have in view only the great national
object Of forming complete naval establishment,
commensurate with our growing greatness and con
sistent with our republican economy. The intro
ducton Of the sectional dock with its arrangements
for placing vessels on the land, would make each
Of our naval depots as efficient and convenient
for building, repairing, launching, and laying up
vessels AZ all Of them combined are now; and an
improvement which produces such important re-
suits and which already is accomplishing lis noble
designs in our merchant marine, ought not to be
lost TO the naval service. In urging It's adoption al
the naval station in which | take the most immedi-
ate interest," rejoice 20 find that shall at once carry
out the wishes Of my constituents, conform to the
opinions Of the best authorities in the country on
such subject, and be humbly Instrumental, j trust
in pomodng the interests, honor, and glory Of our
common country, .. .A at......