The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-03-17

and probably did; though still denying in regard
to any other section and explaining it by saying
that they afterwards determined TO Ia on that one
section alone for the purpose OF raising the stern Of
the ship. | considered the sbsurdity VI this ex-
cuss evident, since it would nyolys the eonse-
quenee of leaving the other ait portions Of the ship,
next 10 the stern one, unsupported, On that aud
olher occasions, his sefcontradictions and tergls
elsaons We're so frequeat and so gross that after
Ssfas requested his associate in the sectional,
dock business not TO bring him any more 10 my
room, as had detected him in twenty falsehoods,'
ana ms disgusting mendaeity was entirely intoea-
DIE ANA when see such AN individual now put
Forward as inc author of abusive public charges Of
.alsehood against so respectable a citizen ofNew
York as Alderman Gilbert consider that violate
no obligation Of confidence when add that his as
sociate referred to freely admitted that he (Dodge)
was very reckless in his lying though pahatng
1t on the ground that he was innocent in it, and
not malignant IL such be his character the less
excusabls is it on the part of whoever may employ
him in such service
al. l.. o'sULLIvAN,"
As for Capt Hosken's certificate that there re-
manned 500 tons Of lifting power left, II Is easy to
imagine how he could have been imposed upon 10
believe so by adroit management Of persons not
mistrusted. The simple fact that the pumps did
suck, eonclusyey proves him to have been de.
| ceiyed IN this opinion. That there also about
his certificate, some Of the IlOkery which has
aboundod from that quarter, ls evident from the fact
of his being made 10 speak Of the ship having been
raised "a feet as though had been "a feet toys and
al-an expression which no seaman would ever APP
ply to that unequal Lifting of the two parts, which
has been above sufficiently proved.
Fourth Charge.
That the publication referred to, made the follow
| ing "6alse quotation from the report Of commits
soners kearney and others, namely: that whereas
that report fixed "33t per cent" az the additional
lifting power required in the sectional dock, beyond
Il ifsa ai In
tons, it quoted, in the publication IN question,
as "52 per cent" This charge is repeated, and GER
tain calculations made after il, accompanied with
plenty Of imPuation Of "palpable falsehoOd," &c.
| Answer.
refer to the files Of the Union, in this city, in
which the publication in question may be found, IN
the paper Of December 10, l845 No such thing
| "52h per cent" will there be found; but on tho
contrary the citation from the report in question ~
correctly given at "33s per cent" thrc6 several
| times over
Fifth Charge.
| That in noticing the lifting of the Henry Clay,
the publication IN question gave fire sections as en-
poyed for that purpose, instead OF siI, which was
the real number employed.
Answer.
| The argument in connexion with which the
ofthe Henry Clay was mentioned, was lhls-name-
to lift her weight, which stated at ,l00i from
which was to be readily inferred the deceptiyeness
Of their claims TO pretended lifting power
desire TO have observed, that the truth of this
innate Of the weight Of the ship is not impugned.
in fact 1t is more than her probable real weight
the weight Of merchant ship being generally est-.
mated at Is per cent of her measurement; the latter
being in this case 400, the former should be only
| $50 tons.
Il was we'll known that sir sections had been en-
IL i IL
last IN the vessel was not known, one section was
Lhro0n of in the calculation to allow for the ballast
The ballast in those vessels rarely exceeds 200 tons.
II Ii was therefore only extreme beraty towards
| the dock, in comparing its lifting power with the
weight of the ship, to throw of whOle section (for
which they now claim 300 tons) ss offset against
the ballast or other equivalent weight to keep her
in trim, which not likely to exceed 300 tons.
This fully explained by me verbally at the
time, 10 the very sgner of the article which now
i charges 1t as a falsehood
desire il to be also noted that they 10 not VEN
ture to deny directly the main fact stated in the urt
Gle referred onamely, thar The tuhos seciirs lifting
pooer Of the tanks srhaustsd 10 get that ship up,
and that it was at last accomplished only by for ing
down the end-foats to one-half OF their power.
They do so, indeed, by indirecton; and will sim
ply remark that shall have no difficulty in fully
shbsantiatng it, as il was seen by numerous wit
| nesses, of whom was myself one. Their own adj
mission gives 1880 tons Of pretended power for
their sections, and does not claim than 100
of weight for the ship ballast not included.) They
say that there was, therefore, surplus of $50. But
when it is shown that the whole power con-
sumed, what becomes of the worth Of their claim of
lifting power
| Having thus simply met Though necessarily IN
great hase) all the abusive charges which claimed my
| notice, have further remark to make upon el-
| Their them their authors. Refuting the one
have desire to retaate upon the others; and have
| but few words more to say ''
What is all this about Dropping all crmna-
| tons and recriminations, the question is simply
\ whether the sectional handbook can, cannot he
made, ,ctin practicable limits Of size and cost, to Ift
| ships of the line of the greatest size and weight
This is what deny. That large tankdocks can be
made to ft vessels of comparatively small weight,
have desired to deny. To sustain their pre-
| tensions, the owners of that dock have always
| greatly exaggerated its lifting power. These exag-
! gerations | have corrected, by showing that, in
the Of the Henry Clay they had to eX-
haust abou, 800 tons of their pretended pow
entire power (Which they now rate at 255O)
to lift $780, or as by them stated, LOO tons.
brief statement will now settle this whole matter.
The total cubic volume or displacementofi the tanks
of their present sections, is at least $4,000 cubic
feet there being tanks, each "a feet broad, and
Sc feet making 2O4 feet fore and aft the width being
81 feet, III not more and the depth ii . ISee House
Dec. No. 81, for 1872 The tanks they propose to
build for ship Of the line weighing 5000 tons CT
should be $1,000 are to be six in number, with
an aggregate length of TIA feet fore and aft, 100
wide, and IL deep. This will produce displacement
of only 1871, 400. We exclude end-foats alike in
both cases. Even their shoiong, if $4,000
cubic feet Of tank required for 2550 TONS (hough
it should be rather 20O0 or l,5oo then for the ship
proposed, they must require double cubic volume
Of tank about $4,000 cubic feet instead Of only
| about l9l 0O0 as they propose.
Now, it will not be pretended that they can widen
their dock beyond the width they have now pro-
posed which is already nearly $50 feet--titself
absurdly impracticable wdth.) Increase of depth
| is the only mode Of getting more power. To be
merely in proportion, then, toh their present dock
Exaggerated as its pretended power is) they must
therefore deepen their tanks (rctaining the
width to their DOCK $50 feeD from Ii feet, as they
| pretend, to at least l8. t.
| This conclusion is inevitable, and is founded all
on their shooting.
| The allowance Of feet for keel blocks and water
| for floating topether with Of feet the drauoht of