New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-09-15
IN INTERESTING Question:

THE PORT ROYAL DRYDOCK TROUBLE AND HOW
1T MIGHT HAVE BEEN AvERTED
The peculiar state OF affairs in connection with
the Port Royal drydock gives prominence to an IN
teresting point which IT, Who VIII be the loser in
the Indiana is placed in the dock and the dock
gives way under the enormous pressure? The ship
has not yet been accepted by the Government. nor
has the dock. Both therefore in the hands OF
the contractors and In case the contractors dock
gives way under the contractors ship where does
the Government come IN? Il would be a costly
pertinent for either Of the parties concerned and 1T
Is doubtful II the Cramps. with all their wealth.
would care to stand the loss II the blame could In
any way be fastened the Navy officials
In connection with this dock the story OF how It
TO be bull; as II IS at present is interesting
reading. According to weli-known officer In the
service who is acquainted with the subject. when
Captain Norman Il. Farquhar was at the head OF
the Bureau OF Yards and Docks. the bids for the
contract were opened. Plans and specifications had
been received from several builders. and had been
examined by a board consisting of Captain Peter c.
Assers0n. senior civil engineer and two assistants
+. 9. Prindle and T. G. McCollum. tbs board
unanimously rejected the Mccarthy plan. but when
the bids opened Mr.. McCarthy's bid was found
to be the lowest. The objections OF the engineers
10 his plan overruled, and after they were
modified somewhat TO suit the IDEAS OF Captain
Farquhar they were adopted and the contract was
awarded Then the work began. ana as 1t went for
ward numerous visits OF inspection were made by
the head II Bureau but It is to be noticed that
there was no Inspection made by a competent civil
engineer or any who thoroughly understood
the difficulties OF the task until recently a board
consisting OF Captain Alexander II. Mccormick and
Ciyil Engineers 4. q. Menocal and c. c. Wolcott
work, appointed to find out what the trouble
was. This board has lodged the issue of lack Of
technical Inspection ana decided that the fault was
chargeable 10 the plans. Continuing the officer
said:
The whole trouble with the big undertaking. in
volving an expenditure of over half a million do-
lars. could have been avoided by having the work
constantly under the supervision OF men whose bust
ness !, do just that work, and the ques-
ton Is asked why II is that battleships under con
stfucuon by private firms are always under the
eve OF a competent engineer and constructor while
the almost equally important drydOcks-tf,s in
particuiar-have been subject to the inspection OF
men who. however capable they may be naVlga-
tors and and executive officers ignorant
OF the practical nicetes and fine technical points OF
building big drydock.
who Is respOrs iDe for the present state OF af-
fairs IL question which people beginning to
ask In earnest. and IL viii take a board OF inquiry
under naval regulations. to slft the matter down
Cormck the head however honest It's in
tentlons mignt nave been. was Handicapped by the
fact that Il simply board VI inspection and
as sucn mad no power To summon Witnesses, admin
lister oaths. compel the giving OF testimony hay
ing 10 Itself with such evidence as might be
gwen voluntarily by those who attended its ses-
H.ons or their free VIII. or could be obtained by
Its own inspection
in the mean time the possibility OF the structure
being put To test by the Indiana Ia not at ali
Portable 20 those who know the condition OF the
dock. The assertion Is non made that there IL
every opportunity for a hrst-ciass smash when a
heaVy vessel Is nJated into the shaky structure
VINO Will take the risk-thc Government the
crack"