The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-01-08
THE DRY DOCK SCANDAL.
NO INDICATIoN OF oOLLUsIoN TO
CHEAT THE GOVERNMENT.

-
Engineer sIenecai was In Charge or the wort,
which nsns Bees Proved Faulty, snd uo
hHan Reen Called Upon 70 show whether re
Exercised Proper Vigilance Over the work.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 7.-Enough evidence IL in
tho possession OF the Navy Department TO show
that dry dock No. 8 at the Brooklyn Navy Yard
is In much worse condition than was supposed
up TO the time the investigation began, which
resulted in the disclosures mentioned in THE
Sun to-day, but there is nothing TO indicate
that any collision was practiced TO cheat the
Government, or that any other criminal meth.
DDS were pursued by those concerned in the con-
struction or repair Of the big basin.
1t 10 evident, however, that while there may
not have boon any culpability on the part Of tho
contractors, proper care was not exercised in
the experimenting OF their work. An officer
familiar with the contents OF all the reports gave
1t as his opinion to-day that the contractors
were merely inexperienced In dock construction.
They took the contract, he said. al q low rate.
and did not know exactly how to con-
struct the dock. Damaging evidence re-
mains, however, that the pilinR at the
entrance was not driven in several in
stances to the depth required by the contract.
Various depths wero required according TO the
character Of the underlying stratum Of firm
soil. running from twenty-eiRht to thirty.ave
feet. Some Of the piling did not go deeper than
seventeen feet, leaving the piles in the mud
without q solid bottom to sustain the weight
brought to bear on them. Much Of this piling
was loosened. but whether from contact with
heavy dredging buckets or because it was in
securely placed has not been determined.
The Investigation, which has developed tho
true state of affairs, was begun by the Navy
Department on Information furnished from
non-of1cial sources that the work had been
poorly done. Naval Constructor Bowles. to
whom had been intrusted the completion of tho
repairs after Civil Engineer A. G. Menocal had
been relieved Of that duty. was directed to
mako an examination OF the foundation of tho
from outside parties were based on some
familiarity with the character Of the work.
is Mr.. Menocal. He was in charge OF the work
when the piline was driven and was responsible
to the Government, for the honest performance
of the contract. Whether Mr.. Menocal was neg
ngsns IL b the performance peri name Of e this dsts duty the Do do
that he did not report that the piling had not
been driven to the required depth, II such was the
Sfsil a ans TO or saoT th %h %orf. hf NIX Hke Mancaa Z R p new
with the Nicaraguan Canal Commission in Cen
trail America. Copies OF the written reports on
position of the piling have been forwarded to
him there.
Last summer, when Mr.. Menocal was relieved
~ W ~ t"o aoNe
and Constructor Bowles put In charge, he de-
manded a court of inquiry to determine whether
his duties had been performed In q proper man
ner. The request was refused. II he renews
the request on the basis of the report which
Of inquiry is q military grand jury. which de-
termines whether further proceedings shall be
taken: In the opinion of some of the naval
result.
The tracings submitted by Constructor Bowles
and the reports made by Civil Engineers Asser-
son and Endicott show that the sheet piling at
the entrance to the dock is so clumsily placed
that much Of 1t must be removed. 1t may be
event the expense Of putting the dock in con-
dition for service Is likely to be enormous. Sheet
the actual. cost Of sheet piling, specially pre-
pared and driven in position, Is a $1,000 q foot.
investigation of the manner in which the con-
tract for the construction OF the dock is made it
will not be until after Mr.. Menocal has sent an
answer to the inquiries of the Navy Depart
ment.