The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-02-15
4 PLEA FOR THE CIVIL ENGINEERS,
Their Relation TO the Brookly Dry Dock ana
Other Naval Work.

Other Naval Work.
In discussing the bad work done on dry dock
No. 8. at Brooklyn. the Engineering Record
makes some interesting statements about the
corps OF civil engineers of the navy, one Of
whom had the supervision Of its construction.
1t holds that better results would be assured
for the service il a member CT this corps of civil
engineers. instead of a line officer, as now.
should be made chief of the Bureau of Yards
and Docks. The duties of that bureau have
come to be those Of civil engineering. and yet
Its control is"in the hands of a line officer
who is not even expected to have any technical
knowledge of the works under his charge. Also.
ut each navy yard. the representative OF the
Bureau Of Yards and Docks is u line officer, the
executive officer of the yard. and under him the
work OF the department Is divided between two
other officers, ono another line officer, who is
practically supposed to have charge of the main
tenance OF existing structures, and tho other the
civil engineer Of the yard. who is supposed to
have charge OF tho construction of new work"
Tho result Is u conflict between two sets of Off.
GERS.
No credit has been given to the civil engineer. and
his recommendations, when they have reached the
Secretary. have been SO weighed down with adverse
opinions from tho executive onicer, the com.
mandant. and the chief OF the bureau. all line OH
GERS through whose hands such recommends tisns
nave 10 pass, mat they have received. scant consid-
should be willing to try to accomplish any work at
all under such conditions might W, II excite surprise.
yes some have manfully toiled on, hoping for better
things. though the smallness OF the corps, only thir.
teen all told. obliges them to depend more upon the
manifest reason ana Justice OF their demands than
upon any personal Influence they could ex,r against
their Tar more numerous and influential opponents.
Turning to the particular case of the BROOKLYN
dry dock; the EnYtnecring Record considers il an
Illustration OF the unwise interference of the line
officer at the head Of the Bureau of the Yards
and Docks:
What he did do in the case OF this particular do,k
was to direct the elimination OF ali features that
were covered by patents, and on these emasculntei
plans the dock was built. The plans having bean
approved. the contract was let by the chief OF the
that he was well known TO be wholly unable TO carry
on such work successfully, and tue engineer was
apparently depended on to make him perform the
impossible. The work was begun, and, after DRAGGING
on for years. the contract was relief TO other uartiass
who completed It. The dock was unnecessarily used
ONE or twice when leaks developed which led to the
present repairs.
Apparently in line with the policy previously in.
dicated OF %belittling the engineer. the repairs 10 the
uock have been tax n from the corps altogether and
placed IN charge OF a naval constructor, who. how.
ence In such work. He is. however, freed from, tns
sup-rincumbent load OF Superhuous and hostile ob.
ciais; ne reports direct to the Secretary OF the Navy,
and s allowed TO get men and materials at once
when needed, and unhampered by the customary red
tape. he also has q recently appointed civil engineer
as an assistant. We trust he Will sue seed in his duty'
but II he does 1t will be the strongest kind OF an aptx,.'
ment for giving the civil engineer a freer hand In car.
Tying on his work.
The En0ineerfng'R Record further remarks that
Whatever the result Of the trial of Mr.. MenocaI
~ VIII not settle the broader question of allow.
Ing the civil engineers to work under better con.
ditions. A new Chief OF the Bureau of Yards
and Docks is soon to be appointed, the term of
the present incumbent expiring on March 10.