The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1875-12-11
No More Money for the Dock DEPART
ment.

Mr.. SALEM VI. WALES, the President OF
the Dock Department, has written a let
ter TO the Commissioners of the Sinking
Fund. which fills eight or ten pages OF
handsomely printed pamphlet, giving
what he calls suggestions as to the
management Of wharves and piers, and
faots relating thereto"
After carefully perusing Mr.. WALEs's
| pamphlet, we do not hnd that IL adds any
| thing to the discussion of the efficiency OF
the Dock Department. Mr.. WALES arrays
facts and figures in support OF the neces-
sity of maintaining "a suitable dock system.
| But the moro he enforces the Importance
Of keeping our water front fully up to
the requirements of commerce., the
stronger il the argument that the Dock
Department should be wise and capable in
management. This we contend IT is not,
and We think we have proved the point.
| Certainly, since we pointed out the weak
ness of the departments work, IL has thrown
overheard the plans on which it had been
working, confessed that a chief part of It's
work was failure, and obtained u COM
mission Of experts TO point out the faults
and the remedy for them. If there is any.
Nj. WALES presents facts from ancient
aud modern history to show that com
mercial city should pay grent regard TO her
docks. He talks of the care Tyre aud
Carthage bestowed on "the Improvement
Of their wharvrs ana piers" but ne does
not compare the dock departments OF
those cities OF two or three thousand years
ago with that over which he presldcs.
Perhaps it was equally bud management
which caused the overthrow Of those an
cient en- 0riuns Of commerce. No one
disputes that if you are 10 have commerce,
you must see TO it that you have proper
provision for the wharfinS of ships, for
their l.dius and unladlug for the easy
handling Of their oarsoes, and that these
facilities are provided at u moderate
chargo against commerce, and carried out
with judicious engineering skill aud ut fair
coat.
The trouble is that though ii has spent,
according 20 Mr. WALES own tcsti-
mony, some five millions of dollars, our
Dock Department has produced results
disgraccsully disproportionate to this vnst
accretion to the debt of the city. One
needs only to walk along the water front
with one eye open to zee that. So lar a.
facilitating commerce is concerned, the
condition OF the wharves is scarcely better
than before a dollar of this money was
spent. This is chiefly due to the obstinncy
and coucait, wrangling aud lack II admin
istrative ability, OF the Commissioners who
fuccoeded Mr. HvST and Mr.. AGNEw and
thtrcoilragucs, and set themselves TO work
rdiculng and ripping up what their pre-
decessors had done. Money put on pubic
improvements that is not spent IN accord
auce with II defined and Intelligent system,
oarably adminst tered is sure to be wasted.
That Is why the Dock Departm onts Ave
millions has gone and no adequate results
have been produced. This Is great sum
Of money, and the wasting OF 1t is little
short Of crime. We shall do what W can
to secure such legislation rs will stop the
| leak.
Mr. WALES lately laid out proposed
river wall Ave miles In length, the cost of
which, he said, would not exceed $1,000
600. This may he correct engineering
estimate. IL could DO done at that price
by "a competent engineer who worked un-
der wise supervision and was not con-
| tinually hampercd by the Interference
Of men who knew nothing about such
work aud little about the duties OF their
| office. But would our present Dock De-
pnrtm mt do II for ss,000,O0O? Taking the
cost II what has already been done Us a
standard Of measurement OF what Mr.
WALLS proposes to do, the Ave miles Of
river wall, instead Of costing only $4,000 coo
would cost $50, 0OO,OOO, and a century would
have TO pass before the work was done
Therefore, when Mr.. WALES argues that
III Il a., a
departments control would be a measure
OF ultimate economy, we totally disagree
with him. If il WAS our affair, we would
not give another cent TO u commission
which, after spending millions, ia obliged
TO acknowledge that il has made a buugle
OF its work, and which cannot point to
anything OF account that it las done.
lie asserts that the rental OF the docks
would in twenty years extinguish tho debt
he proposes to incur; but suppose as the
experience II the past suggests, the money
in twenty years is spent and no proper
system Of water front Improvement has
been offeotedi II in twenty years no more
in proportion has been done with Mr..
wAIEs's prospective millions than with
tho five millions the department has al
|
The needs OF our water front are well
understood by everybody who has studied
the commercial necessities of the city.
Almost the first work OF the original Dock
Commissioners was to go exhaustively into
, that question. Ii Mr.. WALES will read
Gen. McCLELLAN's reports, he will nnd
that he is himself now going over
ground then surveyed much moro skill
fully than he can hope TO do IT, He ha'
4 nothing to teach us on the subject OF New
, York's need OF better wharf facilities
, What we wish from him is TO know why
the wall at Christopher street bulgcs 81
alarmingly and how much II will cost t
make it safe; why the east and ives
y bulkhead at the Battery, built by his skill
full engineer, VAN buren,, has been shovel
out of line some eight or ten feet by tn
pressure Of the earth behind it; why tn
. wall which Gen. GILIMoRE and Gen New
o TON are now inspecting is in such deplora
70 BILE condition and how much the taxpay
9 ers will have to put mp to straighten on
| NIL hn