The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-10-08

4 'ANo~."~,,N
dollars; but The building OF stone basin has run w
10 million. You may Judge OF the cost Of such struc
turc in California under this contract which requires
But then, again. see how unjpsty we are dealt with
The cost Of the structure at Klttery was s. al
Philadelphia, 1854 600 and al Pensacola, lhe
oil the great difference IN the cost IS owing 70 the
difference IN the foundation Now, then, they take or
rule by which this Contract is to be given the very highest
cost q such structure e one a. rsnsaeola ,ne COS,
exist elsewhere. We do not know that the facilities for
the construction OF foundation in California may not
be as good as at Philadelphia or at Kittery, Why,
then is the cost Of The Pensacola dock take es
mate Undoubtedly for larger and more extensive spec
/ ulation .
it did fot seem that the parties were 9nequaly
matched The senator from California has had to con-
tend with four members OF the Naval Committee do
know great deal about this subject but there is one
fact that do know, and that seems TO be admitted On all
hands, that dock is absolutely necessary there for naval
Vessels and Tor vessels OF other kinds There Is large
Of war now that coast There is, then, an absolute
necessity for this work have not myself Investigated
this subjects but IN aconversation with highly fespecta
bic member OF the House OF Representatives, man OF
great intelligence. who has given the subject thorough
nyestg atonl was informed this is the very best plan
that be adopted Now, as there is an urgent neces
sily for plan, backed by the intelligence of man
in whom must place implicit confidence, shall vote
with the senator's from California for this present plan
Mr.. WALKER. confess, sir my mind has UNDER
gone Change since this discussion has been going
and the last fact mefonsd by the senator from Flor
ida strikes very peculiar. and shows that while
the senator from California contends for and while we
are willing to give him. the benefits of dry dock, he
ought certainly 70 join with us IN trying 10 get at
plan such will not really do injustice to the coun-
uy The senator from Florida has Just mentioned that
the great expense OF the dry dock at Pensacola results
from the difficulties in the foundation apon which the
permanent structure is laid Well, sir the difference is
very great The other dry docks cost not more than SIX
or seven hundred thousand dollars that at Pensacola
cost about million and half That is taken as basis
upon which the cost Of this dock In California is cacu.
lion there see whether is not as good as that at Phil
adelphia or Kittery' We are entirely IN The dark
about il.
Mr.. YULEE, lin his seat) Then there is the great
cost OF transportation.
SENATOR. Question i
MIR. WALKER hope my very impatient friend will
teri
But again, il must be borne in mind that this dock in
Pensacola is in the hands Of gentlemen TO whom
proposed to give the contract In San francisco, ana
whose interest is 10 make the cost OF the work al Pen
sacoa just high possible, i being the criterion by
which the Pacific dry dock is to be computed Here,
them are the close OF the session. about TO impose
expense upon the United States government estima-
ting it according criterion that is wholly faacous,
and the whole matter being in the hands OF those whose
interest il is to make the expense as great as possible
wish 10 do Justly with the whole country as well as
with the Stale OF California believe the commerce OF
that country requires something OF the kind ana cal
upon the from California to join us IN getting
something like what just TO our own as well as to their
government.
Mr.. HAMLlN. must say very lew woros. con-
cur very heartily with Of the suggestions OF the sen
aor from Texas. think this contest has been very
unfair one. Nearly all the Naval Committee have not
only given their own views and suggestions but believe
each OF them has gone into somewhat oil lengthy asu-
ment in relation the construction OF dry dosk on the
Pacific coast do not TO detail the Senate by an
asamen but DO mean to state .na, consae ,Ss s
OF some obsolete conmodores who once built stone
DOCKS and another class OF individuals who would aval
Themselves o the benefits and advantages OF that system
nf which has been adopted by Inc commercial
marine almost the world over.
MIR YULEE,. lin his seat) The commercial marine
| Mr. HAMLIN The commercial marine, my friend
says has no BASIN Well sir, il gentlemen object TO
basin in this dock, let them say 40, and meet upon ha
ground but lei them not object TO the erection o dock
because there may he basin connected with IL Now
say from Submitted to The public, aud which
has been by the Naval Committee that thisis mat,
ter which has been tested throughout the continent OF
Europe II is not question which remains TO be tested
in the sixty days between now and next December why
s the argument for delay would come up then as
now Where you 10 get any test any better han thai
which we have already know oil none. Now, slr,
Join going ior dock on that coast and want 10 AID
in its commencement now, whatever may be the cost OF
construction, and whether il is 10 be with basin or
without il and | hazard the opinion, which trust
will hereafter shrink 10 meet BY any sum named, that
il you put stone dock there II wilquadrupe the cost oil
the kind proposed I'll
The senator from Florida talks about the cost Of the
Pensacola dock, and makes that basis OF the expense
OF this one on the Pacific Why does he not take the
dock al New York and refer to That stone dock which
has already cost some two three millions OF dollars
and is not done yet II may be said that circumstances
unfortunate there, and the cost ran up 10 iite
more than IL ought Very well the same argument woult
apply to the dock al Florida where they had not, 10 bt
sure that firm foundation which Providence has made al
New York and Philadelphia
With this view OF the matter, am going TO vote 10
tain the proposition contained in the bill.
4 Mr. BRIGH asked for the yeas and mays; which were
| ordered
/ The question being taken upon the amendment, il wa:
| rejeced--yeas 81, nays 27-as follows:
| YEAS-Messrs. Badger, Barnwel, Bsrrien, Bright, Dav
Of Massachusetts, DAVIS OF Mssssipp Dawsoh Dayton
4 Dodge OF Wisconsin, Dodge OF Iowa, Downs Fech, Ma
i son, Miller, Morton, Pearcc Pratt, Spruancc Walker
| Wbicomb, and Yuee-2l
n NAYS-Messrs. Achson, Baldwin, Bell, Benton, Cass
Chase Clarke, Cooper, Dickinson, Ewing foote Fremont
Greene, Gwin, Hale, Hamln, Hunter, Jones, Msngum
Norris kusk. Seward, Smith, 5oule Sturgeon, Wales, ant
i Winhrop-N.
4 Mr. YULEE. appeal TO the Senate TO consider witt
1 favor the amendment which offer now The great ar
gumen used in reference to building this dock was tb
Immediate necessity for IL. and our great objection
the great cost in carrying out the stone structure 10
the basis which sproposed by this contract And now sub
nit to the Senate whether il will not be really due TO th
public interest make least this alteration in the pro
vision AS il stands now, il provides for floating dock
basin, and railway move to let the floating dock stand
but to strike out the words basin and railway y beln
admitted by the honorable senator from California tina
there certainty OF there being any stone upon that sid
OF the continent that will answer the purposes OF thu
structure move 10 strike out the words basin ant
railway, and that will leave the provision for the hoat
ing dock fef ytb t
The question being taken upon this amendment by
division, II was rejecied--ayes IL, noes 90
II Mr.. PEARCE. move to strike out all after the wor
contrsc in the 249h line 10 the last word In the 257
line, inclusive. II 10 have this floating dry dock