Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-08-02
THE DEAD DOLPHIN.
Tho Criticisms OF the Naval Advisory Board
Made Public.


Made Public.
lBy telegraph TO the Dispatch.l
WASHINGTON, August l.-Secre-
tary Whitney this afternoon made pub
lie the criticisms Of the Naval Advisory
Board upon the report of the Dolphin
Board of Examiners, together with the
reply Of the latter. In regard to the
delay in giving out criticisms, the Sec
rotary remarked to-day that the Naval
Advisory Board declined to unite
with him in asking for trials;
that he appointed an examining
board and initiated the examination
that naval customs and propriety re-
quired him to send the criticisms for
their reply before making them public
that the reply was received only yes
terday, and that he thereupon (yester-
day. ordered both documents to be given
to the press to-day. He also yesterday
addressed to Admiral Simpson the fol-
lowing letter:
Nary Department, Washington,
July 81, lSs5.-Sir: q acknowledge
the receipt Of the communication of the
Naval Advisory Board Of July 18th,
covering criticisms Of the report Of the
Examining Board upon the Dolphin,
with request that the same should be
given equal publicity with their report.
l have caused the same to be printed
and send you herewith twenty copies
for such use as you may choose
to make of them, and shall
give the matter to the newspapers
tomorrow. can but express my sur
prise that your Board should have GER
tilted the vessel to me for acceptance
with so many admitted defects as are
shown by the report to have existed.
Very respectfully,
W. G. WHITNEY,
Secretary Of the Navy.
To Re0r-Admirdi +. Simpson, United
States Nary, President Of Naval
Adrisory Board.
The " statement" submitted by the
Naval Advisory Board makes forty
printed pages equal to about ten ordi-
nary newspaper columns), and the re-
joinder Of the Board OF Examiners is
about one fourth as long.
The Advisory Board begin their
statement by quoting in e1tenso the
criticisms of the examiners on the
structural strength of the Dolphin.
They say: "The above statements
clearly bring against the Dolphin a
most serious charge Of structural weak
ness, due to faulty design and aggra-
waited by defective workmanship. The
alleged evidence in support of this
charge consists of---frst, vibrations of
the structure while under full speed
second, heating of two crank
pins on two successive occasions.
This evidence is presented and
distinctly attributed to lack of struc-
tural strength. Yet, in closing their
report, they state that they regret that
the matter rests upon opinion, and that
nothing short Of trial at sea for some
time in rough water can satisfactorily
determine her strength or weakness.
We now propose to show that the Dol
phin is strong, staunch vessel, and
the above opinion was formed in the
utter absence of positive evidence, and
could not be derived from the examina-
ton OF facts.
The showing which follows is elsbo-
rate and technical, and concludes with
the affirmation that, compared with
other vessels, the Dolphin is exception
ally strong structurally. In regard to
the speed Of the vessel, the Advisory
Board say that speed, being entirely de-
pendent upon the design Of the vessel,
was not included in any stipulations in
the contract, and the whole RESPONSE
bility for it rests upon the designers.
The Examining Board, in their re-
joinder, say that the denouncing of the
vessel and her builder by the Advisory
Board is as good as could be made
under the circumstances, but from some
Of the facts stated they draw very diff
ferent conclusions. The examiners re-
iterate their former assertion that the
vessel is weak slructurally, without
regard TO what she ought 10 have been
by her design. and thsl she shows weak
ness beyond what is properly charge
able TO her plans.
waShssxfca aofcs.
ti'y relesrsph 10 the D'svascE.l