The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-03-16

aggregate of the whole being, as above estimated,
| 2, $50 tons. ...
II will thus be that in the true estimate OF
$50 TONS the lifting potoer Of the end floats Is seid
ed instead Of beng, falsely charged by the Bal
ance-dock Company, and impudenty asserted by
them, to be claimed by the owners Of the sectional
Dock, an additional item of $40 tons
The statement ofthe Balaues-dock Company con-
tinues in the following words
second false statement OF Balance dock
Company.
with a most unaocountable simplicity, they
the Sectional Dock Company then assert that, al
| ter lifting about 100 tons, they sounded and
found they had remaining about 600 or 100 tons.
Assume the greater amount claimed 700 tons, which
added to loo tons makes 2, 400 tons, which, de-
Quoted from 8 1870 tons, (ihe power elaimed) shows
deficiency Of 100 tons"
Second statement Of Balance dock Com.
pany proved false.
Now, it is no where said in the statement Of the
Sectional Dry-dock Company, that ''they sounded
and found they had remaining about 600 or 700
tons" On tho contrary, IL is stated as follows:
l"UPon sounding our tanks after the Great Britain
was raised, we found that not hoo-thirds of the
water was exhausted from them" (See statement
quoted above.) The amount claimed being ESQ
tons, there was therefore remaining $50 tons cor
responding with Captain Hoskens estimate "about
800 tons The only place where the words 900 or
100 tons" occur In the statement of the Sectional Dry
dockCompany, Is where Il ia stated as will appear on
| reference 10 that document, "We had lifted about
7oo tons, leaving but GOO or 100 tons to 10 raised
10 elevate her entirely above the water" The
statement referred to- published on the 95th October
by the Sectional Dry-dock Company, the principal
part OF which is quoted above 10 contained in full
together with the certificates OF X. irwin esq, and
Captain Hosken, IN the pamphlet published by the
company, PIP. %, %, 80, and 81 As regards the
statement OF the Balance Dock Company, that the
Great Britain was raised only 7, feet aft, and feet
IN the bows, we have only TO say that il is unqua-
hedy false. IL can be proved by the most unques-
uonably authority that she was raised more than s
feet alt, and over feet forward.
| We ask any dispassionaIe reader TO point us 10
more unfair, base, and utterly false misrepresenta-
tons than those we have thus far exposed; where
the language Of the statement Of the Sectional Dry
dock Company Is perverted, garbled, and mis-
stated, IN order TO sustain the charges Of the Bal
snce-dock Companyi where the latter have abso.
utely gone so far to assert deliberate falsehood
| on which 10 build their fabric Of caumny.
We now come TO the allegations Of ths Balance
dock Company in reference to the report Of the COM
missioners appointed by the Navy Department to
examine the Balance and Sectional Floating. docks.
Ia regard 10 this report the publication Of the Bal
snce.doek Company holds the following language;
| These gentlemen Che navy commissioners)
after fully considering its power, say that 80 per
cent Of excess Of lfting power should be given 10
the tanks TO meet the conditions Of which they
had been speakingi in other words, that the dock
falls 49, per cent. short IN its effective power Of
what is claimed for it,"
| The passnge in the report Of the Board OF
Navy Commissioners, 10 which reference is here
made by the Balancedock Company, is as follows
Extract from Navy Commissioners Re-
port In relation TO Sectional-dock.
.if the aggregate buoyaney Of the tanks is equal
only TO the weight Of the ship, the operation can be
performed emily by exhausting all the tanks, thus
applying the same lifting power a, the extremes and
in the middle, and thereby sranng the ship severe
lily; for the displacement would proceed in the fol
lowing ratio: dividing the length Of the ships kee
into three equal parts-for the forward section 3l6
middle, 3s2i and the after, 292. Again, it is assert
ed that the power Of the tanks to adapt themselves
lto the form Of the keel is a great adyan-
tage to the ship. IL we suppose the ship
to be large, and hogged one foot, it will be
perceived that, when the forward and after
tanks are at the surface Of the water the middle
ones, by conforming to the arched keel will be one
foot out Of paisr, and have, shercforc lost part
their lifting power, equal to the cubicsl contents oil
the emerged part. The board find, by calculation
that 33i per cent. of excsss OF lifting power should
be given to the tanks TO meet these conditions, and
Of consequence, a proportional addition must bs
made to the estimates for the sectional dock"
When the Board Of Navy Commissioners made
this report they fell into error, which is justly
chargeabe to the owners ofthe sectional dock them
selves, for neglecting emitting to explain the &C
tual operation Of the dock.
sectional-dock not liable to the above
Il objections.
Admit that each foot of the section under the
heaviest part of the vessel, taken at right angle,
with the keel, sustains a weight equal to that Of
each foot Of the vessel taken through amidships
which il must do to raise the vessel. The weigh
of one foot SO taken in ship Of the line, with he,
armament on board, is 20 tons. Suppose the width
Of the Section under the heaviest part Of the ship,
be % feet multiply % feet the width of the section
by %, the number Of tons for each foot, and W.
have 84l tons, which is the same as the displace
ment Of twenty-nine feet in length Of the vesse
over the section. ,-.-. r.r .. .i-
BY placing two or three sections, therefore, clos,
together, we have their full power brought to beal
where il is needed. But the vessel diminshes il
displacement towards the stern and bows the lftiDs
power is graduated in corresponding ratio, ant
the full power of each section may be applied by
placing the sections at such distance apart as will
Iequal the displacement Of the ship at the parts te
which they are applied. ...|'.
Again, in the case Of vessel being hogged,' ire
ferred to by the Navy Commissioners,) the loss O
power which they presume to take place is obyiaet
by raising blocks the sections amdshiPs, as to
correspond with the hog of the keel, in the sam,
manner they have to be placed in stone-docks te
fit the shape Of the keel, and prevent strainng the
ship Thus the sections maintain their proper posi-
ton, and no power whatever is lost.
False quotation from Navy Commission
ers' report by Balance-dock Go.
Referring to the report Of the Navy Commission
ers, the publication Of the Balance Dock Company
goes on to say:
"2,75o tons were expended in lifting less than
l,500, thus showing a deficiency Of $50 tons, q
loss Of nearly one-half her pretended power, and
showing that 52td per cent, stated by the Commits
sioners, is quite within the truth"
Now as the Commissioners have made no such
statement and the expression 50 Id per cent. does
not in their whole report in reference Il
the sectional-dock we leave the public to judge oil
the honesty Of those who dare to assert papable
a fnlschooa. III NJ ..~ -..
But as the Balance-dock Company have seer
proper to allude to the observations Of the Navy
Commissioners, let US refer to the same report Of
these Commissioners and see what they say abou
the balance dock.
Condemnation Of the Balance dock BY
Navy Commissioners.
Extract from the report Of the Navy Commission.