New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-03-26
SIMPSONS LOSE THEIR SUIT.
THE LONG CONTEST OVER THE NAVY
YARD DOCK ENDED.
,.vrp, WORK occAsIoNEp by otncKsANDs NOT

t-,,rp, WORK ocCAsIONED BY otlCKsANDS NOT
10 M PAID FOR BY THE GOVERNMENT.
roros = Simpson & Co. the drydock builders.
,,,.. heer defeated In a suit against the Federal
Government IN the Court of Claims at Washington
Tho claim vas FOR sl9ISlG % and arose IN ths way
The Navy plrtment, on April ~ lSS' ADVERT Seu o
,ronosals for the construction OF two drydocks one
:, ~ urookIvn Navy Yard and the other at Nor
,,lL Va The advertisement contained this sem
fence: For Information In regard 10 inc ioca''o"
and sites OF the docks. bidders are referred To the
commandants of the New-York and Norto'H Navy
yaras" IN pursuance OF this the Simpsons called
man ,be commandant Of the Brooklyn Navy Yard
FOR Information to the site ana location OF the
proposed dock The commandant referred them 10
c,vu Engineer T. c. Asscrson for the facts the
bulIders needed The Simpsons and AsserSoh went
vor tho location together. and In repy TO questions
as IN the nature OF tho soil to be excaVae' ASSe'
sor n T., asserted. sa!d that he had mad borihhS
made all the site witi' an anger ana "'u io'
varded the results TO the Navy Department at
,y,sbtnrtor He said that until he had heard from
the authorities there he could not give any Informal
ton about tie nature OF the SOIL
,, contractors say that early In June. 1887, they
s.w Engineer Asserson mt the Navy YARD ana 'hat
he showed them "A report and PRONE wh'ch "c sun
represented A longitudinal section Of the strata
n,or,v,n0 the centre line OF the proposed drydock
and TIA, Alfred H. simpson made data at the Time
from this profile and report when ne USED III MAX
ing hls estimate The contractors asked TOT copy
Of the report and probe. but Mr. Asserson recon-
mended that a written request for the copies De
mnde upon tho commandant OF the yard They
dd So stating their Intentions 10 oiu ior inc WI"
struction OF the proposed dock
Tb. commanlant In reply, asked them 10 en-
anime the report OF the borlngs made by Engineer
Asserson on the Site together with the PRONE lot
warded to the Department. They again caiied ana
examined the report which Endorsed profile
Of
Tinted states Navy Yard Brooklyn. y. y.
Tho r.nort stated that the nature OF the soil under
lying the site had been investigated Tor depth OF
f, % ., AZ feet below the grade. or TO depth usua
and necessary for foundation piles for dock under
ordinary conditions This report showed that the
soil was composed OF clay. gravel, sand mud anu
similar materials. The contractors claim 'ha' ITO
mention was made In either paper OF qui'hsahu OF
other unstable materials which would tal 10 sup
port the dock undermine 1t or make It's construction
umcult mr. extraordinarily expensive. In the pet-
,,o, %, damages the Simpsons claim to have ac-
csn,aa the accuracy OF the statements made on
Asserson's profile and report. ana on 'heSe o"'''
m; rhs,r Hi was accepted by the Government In
rnne ,ss7 and they at once entered upon the work
been done they found chat the soil was different
from that set forth in fhc report and profile Ihsy
slto hepnnlng at q feet below the grade ana ex-
teni,ne 70 n Feet below grade. This required the
reconstruction OF much OF tne wopK nnu 'a bs
n large amount of extra labor and material was
used this aeconn, tna Tou,a b no maSer,pn
the site been as represented by the report OF the
enginee'. ,,., ,., ,,,,o ., ,,,,a
by the contractors. and by Engineer Asserson. OF
how matters were progressing ana Ina sx, h apVr
The Department did not object e. these extras
which cost the claimed sl97 3l6 49, for which the
s suit vas tn aasA haI hssn nAndins