Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1864-01-14
NAVAL ENGINEERING.

and the Cause of its Failure; by Edward N. Dick
erson Of New York" It further appears on the
face of the publication that this exposure" As
thus produced, was originally made in the shape
of "a speech delivered to jury in the Supreme
Cout Of the District Of Columbis, before Chief
Justice Cartier, in the case of Mattingly VS.. The
Warrington and Alexandra Steamboat Company"
We find on perusal Of the pamphlet that its
author has very properly entitled it " speech de-
lversd to jury for it, style, temper, and con-
tents partake much more Of the character OF
harangue from the platform than Of a forensic ar
gumtnt addressed 10 in jury box and to
Judge on tha bench. If Mr.. Dickerson really had
any " exposure Of the Navy to make and wished
to secure audience for his representations, it is to
be regretted that lie has couched the latter in terms
which, by their intemperance, betray SO much more
of personal pique and luminosity than Of simple
d sposition to subserve the ends of public utility
and honest inquiry We are frank to say that 80
unfavorable was the impression left on our mind
by hasty psrusal Of the pamphlet that We should
not have deemed it worthy Of further consideration
il we had not observed from the recent proceedings
of the Senate that Mr. Dickersons statements have
been brought to the notice Of that body by one Of
its members with the suggestion that the interests
of the Navy and the credit Of its present admins
trAtion by Mr. Secretary Weles are concerned in
the matter Of these injurious accusations, which,
though made as the incident Of a suit between pri-
vate parties, came in the hand, of Mr. Dickens n
to assume the shape of . sweeping indictment
against the conduct of our naval affairs, and espe-
oiaily against the mana. cement of the Bureau of
Engineering as controlled by Mr. sherwood.
Our readers are apprized that the question in
controversy between Mattingly and the Washing
ton and Alexandria Steamboat Company was as to-
the value ,f what is called the Sickles cut of "
in the working Of steam engines, to which it is APP
piled Mr. Isherwood, in his examination before
the jury, had represented that "there was no adj
vantage in cutoff" and as Mr.. Dickerson is the
legal adviser Of Mr. Sickles, if MT otherwise in
terested in his invention, the former was sum-
moned to defend before the Court Of this District
the patent rights of that ALLEGED improvement
1t is proper to add that the jury in the case
rendered verdict for a saving Of thirty four pr
cent as the product Of The cutoff in question
The charge brought uOder these circumstances
against Mr. 1sherwood is that in the construct on
Of steam ~ gines for the navy he has abandoned
the use of the /" cut of, and thus discarded the
principles upon which all the vessels Of the world
and all commercial scamers are built. This
change, says Mr.. Dickersou, will be I" fatal !" and
he accordingly urges that all contracts for the oou
struction of new engines be "stopped just where
they are
1t is only just to the Navy Department that We
should state, what we understand to be fact THAT
the engines Of the United States steamer Pensacola
we're constructed, by authority Of the Government,
under the auspices of Mr. Diekerson and Mr.
SickIes The result Of their labors on that vessel,
if not already koowa to our readers, may be seen
in the following statements purporting to emanate
from gentleman familiar with the points at issue
Owing to the ignorance and inexperienee Of the
tractors designing machinery the drawings were
az slowly furnished aud The bunders them
merous and involved many alterations that Dotwith
standing the great facilities OF The Washington navy yard
TOOLS materials and mechanics for this specia Kind OF
work il not until January 1852 that the trial trip
made The long period OF two years and nine month";
having consumed the completion OF the machinery
about three tmes longer than should have been.
Dur0g this period there long intervals in which
neither draw ings directions furnished. and n
seemed though The contractors had abandoned the
work which nsequeatly suspended Notwithstanding
the Bureau If Construction repeatedly wrote them
Of the delay, and urging them to
proper fuflIment Of their contract but ia vain and 1T
probably would have been completed had they not
employed Mr. Edward Farron, formerly eogis-er ia
the navy to take it in hand and flush il and to him a
due whatever merit there may be getting these engines
70 work at all
The cost of the Per sscoas machinery 1928 600
its weight $40 tons and together with it's COAL 10
pies l2 feet Of the length Of the vessel than
guaranteed and in that increased space there carried
only 200 tons Of coal sufficient for barely ak dsys
moderate sieanng, instead Of eleven days it should
have been
at the time the contract for the Pensacols's mach
merry given others awarded for the Lancaser
and Hartosds, vessels of the class and type and
substantially 81 the The machinery Of the
Lancaster Cost $l37 500 and weighed 246i tour. That
Ut the Hartford cost $ll4400, aud weighed 200 tons
These vessels have maximum speed OF "a knots, aud
carry the space originally allotted coal enough for eleven
days moderate steam0g They promptly com
peted and have been constant always
ready and reliable while only steamns done by the
Pensacola from the Washingto ton navy yard to New
Orleans, which city she reached with difficulty and with
her miserable machinery in unreliable condition h.
bring forth report from her chief engineer to the Ad
mral that be could not it's services ia getting
the river.
Since that she has lain at anchor front Of New
Orleans AZ u hulk floating battery and has been On
tirey useless steamer, Notwithstanding the pres
need OF her services the blockade and the sorts OF
her chief engineer.
few mouths since Dickerson assured the Navy De
parment that the Peusscolas machinery the finest