The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1896-11-18
MENOCAL CENSURBD.
He and Engineer White Re-
spoDsible for the Navy
Yard Dry Dock
Mishap.
NO COURT MARTIAL ORDERED
Allowance for Long and Faithful
Service Constructor Bowles
Exonerated.
NO COURT MARTIAL ORDERED

WASHINGTON, Nov. Is, 1S96.-Secre-
tary Herbert has severely reprimanded
Civil Engineers Menocal and White as
responsible for the dry-dock accident at
the New York Navy Yard last August
but has declined to court-martial those
officers. In a letter sent Mr.. Eenocal
yesterday the Secretary says that in
view of that officers long and faithful
service he would not court-martial him.
but the findings of the court are approv-
ed and the department -reprobates''
MenocaFs conduct.
Mr.. White, whose responsibility was
less in degree was similarly 4reprobat-
ed Constructor Bowles on whom an
effort was made to shift the blame. was
eKonerated.
The findings of the court were in the
main as follows:-
About May l, 1886, the Naval Construe-
tor, e I. Bowles, made q recommended
Iion as to certain repairs necessary to be
made to the caisson of dry dock No 2
This called for the removal of a portion
Of the loose stone ballast in the caisson.
Civil Engineer A. c. Menocal as a
senior civil engineer at this yeard. had
charge of the work, the manner Of its
performance, ETC.. and he mad special
h !mself being in the habit of dividing the
work in the yard with his assistants
He made certain calcu.a ticns 10 satisfv
himself as to the safety Of doing the work
Constructor for his professional opinion
on the same subject. Mr. B6wles as
sured him that in his opinion it was per-
fectly safe, and Mr.. Menocal ordered the
work performed.
The calculations Mr. Menocal made
were made by assuming the weight of the
eatsson, with fittings and permanent bal
last, the weight OF stone ballast. and the
coetficient of friction between the rubber
gaslset and the iron of the caisson.
While the testimony shows that theo-
retieally, from the calculations made by
Mr.. Menocal before and since the acct
dent occurred, there was margin of
safety of about two hundred tons after
removing the stone ballast from the cais-
son; there was no precedent to fix that
amount as sufficient under all conditions
of tide and weather.
The stone ballast could have been plac-
ed on the working deck of the caisson.
and the work accomplished with perfect
safety, but at slightly increased ex-
pense.
The Naval Constructors letter which bv
approval became the order of the Bureau
of Yards and Docks, authorizing this
work. called for the removal Of "a por-
tion of the stone ballast; yet Mr.. Menoeal
removed 1t all ON the statement of Cen
structor BoWfles as to his intention when
he wrote the letter as Will be seen from
Mt Bewles' testimony. and that Mr..
efeFseeal~ failed to ask the Bureaus ap-
prevail of this Interpretation.
Mr. MenocaI practically eft the yard on
Friday at noon, his regular leave begin
ming on Saturday at noon. Civil Engineer
=. S. G. White relieved Mr. Medpcal on
both occasions. and while he Mr.. White
knew Of the condition the caisson was III
at the time, he received no Special in
structions IN regard thereto; as head Of
the department ne assumed charge, and
IN his testimony he stated that had he
been doing the work ne would not have
taken all Of the stone ballast out at once;
cffl to
he did not admit any water ballast, al
though he knew the caisson was to remain
in place until Monday before any work
was TO be done; his statement that he did
not do so, as the caisson had been SO
left by Mr.. Menocal and that 1t had stood
two high tides in that same condition
seems seems unsatisfactory in the face of his
testimony before mentioned. This testi-
mony was given by Mr. White when he
was recalled by the court and asked to
explain why he did not admit water bal
last when ne assumed charge of the
work, he having given the opinion in his
testimony that he would not have re-
moved all the ballast had he been in
charge of the work. When Mr.. White
was recalled he was informed Of Mr..
MenecaPs testimony and stated that he
did not wish to cross-examine him there
on
Although Civil Engineer White consid-
cred the manner of performing the work
unsafe, he not only did not admit water
ballast, but he failed to report his sus-
picfons to the proper authority; neither
did he visit the dry dock at all to In
spect the work
We. find that the several vessels secured
in the vicinity Of the dock were injured
to. more or less degree and that such
INJURY vas the direct result of the ac-
eident, and that they were all proper
gencies, and, therefore, that no blame at
taches TO anyone In reference TO such in
juries.
The examination of the dock since il
was pumped out having shown no other
cause for the accident, we still believe
that the removal of all the loose ballast
W5s the cause
The court is also of the opinion that
further proceedings should be had in the
case OF CiY!l Engineer A. @. Menocal, u
=. n. on the grounds that he was care
DUTY. IN acting on the advice of Naval
Constructor f, t. Howles u. S. NJ. with
out sst even inquring on what grounds he
he did not visit the caisson after Thurs
day at about 4:90 p NJ, when the ballast
had not been all removed, though he re-
NAMED on duty IN charge Of the depart
ment of yards and docks until Saturday
noon.
The court is also of the opinion that
further p9r,oec.s,edlngs 9,e4o., should be had in the
u. S.sN., on the ground that he was care
less and neglected his duty in failing 10
advise the Cemmandant that the caisson
was unsafe without stone or water baliasf
when he relieved Mr.. Menoca1 at noon on
Saturday. be being of the opinion thai he
would not have removed all the stone
ballast as shown in his testimony had he
been in charge Of the department at the
time 1t was done. And also in his failure
to visit tha caisson and inspect the work
alter relieving Mr. Menoca1 il order to
properly inform himself of the irnnortallt
work being done in his department
The above further proceedings recon-
nended in both the case of Civil Engineer
A. G. Menocal, u. S. N. and that Of civil
Engineer Y. S. G. White, u. S. N. should |
in our opinion, be trial by general court
martial