New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-08-16
SICARD ON THE STAND.
THE COMMANDANT OF THE NAVY YARD
GIVES HIS TESTIMONY

GIVES HIS TESTIMONY.
REMOVAL OF BALLAST. IN HIS OPINION hE'ro''-
srplr FOR THE ACCIDENT TO DRYpocK
NO 2-crvIL ENGINEERS AND SHIP
KEEPERS TESTIFY.
rbo Investigation into the causes Of. the acci-
den, at Drydock No 2 in the Navy fIru ",
,uorst g was continued yesterday by the Na'ai
Eonrd of inquiry in Building No. In the Nd's
Yard Commodore Montgomery Sicaro wac VIZ
first witness called at the morning ScSSo''
the most important Of the day beio'c sN,'s
his testimony ne considered his wo'uS 0"''
and he mt his knowledge of the case IN 4 io''"
which will probably prove OF much value 10 III,
BOARD IN reaching its decision Commodore Slca'"
said that he had made two reports 10 'n' -'''s
Department on the accident-one " ""si"" ~
Sunday and the second by writing on sio"u"S
In his reports he had given 1t as MS opnio' ."'
the accident had occurred a result OF 'aKiHs
,,o much ballast from the caisson He also gave
rough estimate OF the damage. lie 'alu '",i'
the naval constructor had recommended '""' Wv
rock ballast should be removed ana 'h"' ''",
be substituted in It's place lie thous"' -"
annroved the recommendation, and That II ha'
also bcen approved by the Department ana the
,or,, had heep officially authorized. He had given
u,tla attention 10 the order The communicate ne
said generally gives orders. but does NOT at'eH"
TO the details OF their practical execution vi"
nodore Sicard said that he believed the a'''"''"
was caused by the removal OF 100 much p"'"''
and EXPRESSED the opinion that want OF lorc
Thought and carolessness had been dlSpi'E'"' "'
said that he had reached this decision ai'er con,
versation with several persons. ana WIN the 81"
Of his general notion Of the WORK II" vas as"
fortified in this view because he r'hf'"p'''"
similar accident which had taken P''' 'o'0
years ago. ,, &c
Lieutenant Barnett asked Commodor" S'"l" ~
to the division Of authority in the yard among H.
,arious officials The reply that the civil en-
yircer IL the person In immediate charge over
the docks while the captain OF the yaru - we
suporior Of the civil engineer. The captain oi nv
ward however, was not supposed 10 give oi"'''
to the civil engineer. who Is expected 10 NM"
what work should be done and to see that II y
nerformed The captain Of the yard does not ei'e
opinions on purely engineering aitairS' anu 'i''
not been required to do so. The civil engineer
norris 10 the commandant through the captain u
the yard.
INFERRED THAT 40 CIVIL ENGINEER NA'
PRESENT.
II ren,, n a question. Commodore Sicard sali tha'
,r,e capain of the yard could have made the M" '0p
ne work but he doubted whether the cap'a'" ia"
.,r,h,ng 70 do with investigating as to wnether ''e
aiso, WAS beng unoaded TOO much. one OF me
,,,eras,fne noints upon which the Investigators u'
,o,ded enlightenment was whether or nor thc'e "H9
a civil engineer in the yard at the tine o. the az
don, Comm odore Sicard said that ne khe" u ~"
,i,no urhen there was civil engineer III ll' !"I
n,,gb, no assumed he said. that the captain OF inc
yard uouI take charge II the civil engineer "e'e ~
ZEN, A. the time OF the accident. he said, civil
tneineer Menocai who had charge of tho WORK oI r.
moving the ballast from the caisson Was ava! vi
thirty DAYS leave Of absence lie had 'ur'''u ''e
work over TO civil Engineer |. ,. u. VIM Inn
,,,lora sicard said that as Civi Engineer White ana
.fa var a
in the yard and as the accident occurred alter WI
ing hours were over the inference was mat there was
no civil engineer there at the time Inc c'N'' e's'-
neer in charge at the close of the working daN wa
no should say the man responsible for the CONDITION
Of affairs In the evening
WARNED BY WORKMEN
Edgar W Haskins the next witness cae'. re
nas charge OF the laborers In the yard anu uo'N ""
nor,ments He testified that he had been ordered %
take all of the balas, and to put IN tn" concrete
ballast He had finished taking out the old ballast Oh
Friday afternoon. When instructions were given u
him he said that question as 10 the S@'''' " w.
,nsration had entered his mind. When the work was
abou; half over however. he suggested 20 hns'"ee'
,,ocal that some OF the concrete should De put III
before all of the rocks had been taken out D! Wa!
-, rrecaution Mr. Uaskins did not know tnat f'hel-
Moor Nsnocal had done any figuring on the saiety y.
the work Mr. EIaskins said that ne "pI Lt. ~
mo engineers orders and did not CONSIDER h'ns NJ ,
sronsibe for the operation The weight Of ne oa,
last had been estimated a ~ ions D I thomg6t
he lieved the weight was less than that. ~ ~ Is,
II would have been practical TO put par oi VI uos
crete in before the stone was al rei nb nsssng the
casson had told him TO ooK ?ut , or s"' asfsant Of
naval construction who is in charge OF me depart
.an, for ,yo weeks was called His testimony Was
mostly ech 1 anp D@ AGAIN On Monday with
fully prepared expert testimony WHO" WIN " ~ 80
little value
CIVIL. ENGINEER PRINDLEs TESTIMONY.
Civil Engineer F. c. Prinde was the next witness.
He rened without hesitation when asked for his opln-
ion on the cause OF the accident;
The removal OF the ballast
could the accident have been forestaled by rea-
sonabe forethought?" asked Lieutenan. Barnett.
II should say So yes
"By CONSIDERING the experience thai ensineers
have had in dealing with caissons OF Ike 'ohS'ruc'
"Do you know of any accident of a similar
only by report" ..,,ou. -,
can YOU think OF any cause for the accident ex-
cept the taking out of. the ballast!
IL cannot" ,, 49,, ,.
In your opinion If you were doing the , work
would YOU have taken out All VI '"e o"''"S'
II would not" ,., .,,, ,
did you ever hear OF similar operation """'i
similar circumstances?
Engineer Prinde said that he did no; n nov, that
dent and that he had nothing TO do with tne work
dock No 2.
THE EFFECT on OTHER VESSELS.
Robert Goodman the shlpkeepcr of the Puritan,
then told Of his observations and experience on the
Puritan when the accident took place lie said
that the Puritan sufficiently secured at the
time of the accident, and told of the effect Of the
accident on the vessel. adding that no injury had
been done to her.
Commander Frederick Singer of the Terror. who
was on board the Terror dt the time OF the acct
dent told OF the effect Of the accident on that Nes-
sci He said among other things, that II parted
two lss-nch chains. His testimony was given in
great detail and interesting. as showing the
terrific force of the rush of water.
The last witnesses were George Gulllksen'
coxsv,ain of the commandments launch. and James
Sullivan shipkeeper OF the Ericsson. Gullihsen was