New-York tribune., 1898-11-21
THE NAVAL DRYDOCKS.
GREAT ADVANTAGE OF STONE OVER
WOOD SHOWN BY EXPERIENCE


fleet in being"-the fleet guard at sea-may be
preserved In a condition OF maximum efficiency. n
cardinal requirement is that its ships shall have
clean hulls. a foul bottom r. jures a vessels use
fulness In two vital ways first by affecting Its
speed. and second by reducing its steamng radius
The policy Of Congress has been heretofore TO
build unsheathed ships. The naval force which lay
off the Cuban coast and that which fought In
Manila Bay suffered. therefore. In its brief service
a most rapid deterioration in speed and coal cndur-
ance-a loss which in the event Of a prolonged war
woul6 have had marked and probably serious
effect All ships with or without sheathirg re-
Quire periodical docking for examination cleans
Ing and repair As general principle then. it
may be stated that the -owth of the fleet and the
expansion Of the system OF drydocks should go
hand IN hand.
The Government Of the United States is far be-
hind the other frst-class Powers or the world not
only in the number. but In the character. OF its
drydocks. Out of the eleven which It controls
and operates only four Of masonry.
DOCK CONSTRUCTION ABROAD.
In the other navies of the world drydocks are OF
the most pern:Anen; character. and almost In
variahiy constructed OF masonry. In cvct.
single Instance is recalled IN which any nation
has constructed a craving dock for its navy OF any
other material The German Government
Gently about TO sub idizc such dock. 10 he built
In that country and to be capable Of accommo-
dating The largest vessels Of It's feet. When how
ever the dock company proposed TO use timber
the material Government aid vas refused the
enterprise and II was only upon condition that ,he
dock be Of masonry that the subsidy finally
granted The preference for masonry docks
abroad extends largely private corporations. In
England all great modern works OF this character
now building constructed Those already
completed upon the Thames and other rivers. in
which wood is used 10 some extent are Old and OF
moderate size. and the timber is only one feature
OF the dock, and not particularly distinctive one.
Such docks almost Invariably embody in their
structure large amounts Of masonry, concrete or
br.ckwOrk. and the timber Is used to greater
less extent. for lining only.
Efforts have been made persistently from time
70 .ime before Congressional committees to show
that the timber dock is the only proper type for
this Government to build; that ii is cheaper in
first cost and in maintenance thereafter. and that
It has superior merits in use-the final conclusion
from this peculiar and eX parte reasoning being
that the Nation should never again construct a
dock OF masonry. conclusion which the expert
ence Of the Government with timber docks In re-
spect 10 stability safety and Of repairs would
seem 10 expose as wholly fallacous.
FIGURES THAT MIsLEAD.
With regard 10 the relative cost of repairs. tables
have been presented by the persons interested in
The building Of timber docks to prove what would
seem TO he manifest absurdity. namely. that the
Of repairs docks is much greater than
to hose Of timber Analyses Of these tables show
that although their constituent items are correct
the arrangement Of these items is such TO lead
10 deceptive conclusion The expenditures upon
the stone docks. which are Included. have covered
e long term Of years. and have been not only upon
repairs. but upon caissons. modern pumping
plants and many other accessories the repairs
proper to the distinctive feature OF the docks-i.
tire stone concrete masonry-not having been
considerable. excepting in single
This exception is the stone dock at ,he Navy
Yard New-York which when about forty years
old received an outlay OF approximat tely 10000
which outlay included. however. the relaying OF
large portion of the masonry at the entrance and
also considerable work upon the pumping plant
on the oJher hand the stone docks at Boston and
Norfolk which were completed sixty-nve years ago,
have had only the slightest repairs to their
masonry. and the Mare Island dock, which was
opened for in lssl. such repairs have amounted
70 practically nothing, although in the table re-
ferrei to- which was presented the naval com
mittees Ct the TWO houses. endeavor was made
show that repairs upon this dock most
cXtr trIordnary in extent. considering its length Of
service II may be noted further that at the time
these tabular comparisons were made not one OF
the timber drydocks of the Navy had reached the
age Of ten years, and that therefore their service
had been too short to determine even approxi-
ma ely, the extent and Of repairs for the
future
EXPENSE OF MAINTAINING TIMBER DOCKS.
The Government has learned and TO It's is
learning daily the great expense OF maintaining In
safe condition these timber drydocks The outlay
OF $4,000 upon Drydock No. 8, New York within
a year after it's completion: the expenditure Of
100000 upon Drydock No. .. also at NewYork
when only eight years old. the outlay Of $4,000 or
S50 90 upon the timber drydock at Norfolk before
II is ten years Old and OF a still greater upon
that at League Island-these may fairly be taken
as examples of the bills which the Nation must
a penalty for Its unwisdom in constructing
docks Of wood 1t should be remembered. further |
that the timber docks have not yet reached the age
when their cassons must be renewed. and when !
their pumping plants have so far deteriorated as
10 require extensive repairs or replacement by |
more modern machinery When this stage In the |
history Of the wooden docks is reached and these
large items are entered under the head of Re |
pairs" the makers OF the comparative tables re- |
fcrred % will find II impossible explain the logic
OF their figures and somewhat difficult to give the
motive for their formulation.
The repairs TO docks belonging 10 private cor |
porations have been cited frequently as example, |
Of the small expenditure 10 which the Government |
would be subjected in the maintenance of wooden |
doc ks. As this line OF reasoning. II may be- |
said that IT is exceedingly Difficult. to ascertain |
The cost OF repairs TO such private docks although
IL IL known as to some-notably those at Boston
and Brooklyn-that the aggregate amount has
reached a very large sum. Moreover these docks
are not maintained in good and safe cond-
,ion naval docks VIII be kept, Finally
here IS structural difference Of vital importance
between the docks referred 10 and those build
ne for he Government in that because OF the
grea; draught OF naval vessels Natona! docks
sre much deeper a rule. than those for private
corporations Every fCot Of depth in the cane OF
timber dock a great increase in the
clement OF instability. Stone docks have not been
built for private use in this country because Of
their comparatively large first cost. because the
depth so far required t. moderate. and because
timber Is plentiful and cheap. With proper
growth In the amount of merchant shipping and
N the size Of merchant steamers. the disappear
arce OF the timber dock for private is only a
question Of time
MASONRY DOCKS SAFER.