Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-01-11
DRY DOCKS OF STONE
Secretary Long Writes on the Policy Of ths
Department
Views of the Chief of the Bureau on
Yards and Docks Transmitted
to Congress,

Hale. chairman of the Senate committee on
naval affairs. and Acting Chairman Foss
OF the House naval committee, strongly
emphasizing the advantage Of stone over
timber dry docks. and urging that the ma
terial for new docks at League Island, Pa.
and Mare Island. Cal, be changed from
timber to stone.
The letter reads as follows:
Referring to your communication Of the
9th instant, with copy OF the bill s.. 1854 1
have the honor TO state that the chief of
the bureau of yards and docks reports in
relation to the proposed change OF material
to be used IL the construction Of the dry
docks at the navy yards at League Island
Pa, and Mare Island. Cal. from timber to
concrete and stone. that the condition of
the work under the contracts for these
docks is such that it would be practice Bile
TO make change in the construction
without modifying the work already done
or involving any increase of cost because
of the abandonment of the work already
done Inc change proposed in the bill III
X. 1920 should be made because Of the adj
Vantages to the government Of the con-
struction contemplated. A dry dock con-
structed of stone and concrete is greatly
superior to one Of timber because Of its
permanence.
Reporting further in the premises the
chief of the bureau referred to has submit
ted the following. viz:
Only Temporary I'm Character.
Dry docks built of timber are found by
the governments experience to be struc-
lures OF temporary character, requiring
very extensive repairs after the lapse OF a
few years. and frequently these repairs
amount to a reconstruction of the work
while dry docks of stone or concrete ma
sorry are permanent structures requiring
very slight repairs. The frequent repairs
to timber dry docks are very dsadvanta-
geous because extensive repairs or renew
ais throw the dry dock out of use for long
periods OF time, which results in very great
inconvenience to the naval service when,
as at the present time. the number of dry
docks in the navy Is very small and par
ticularly when the urgent need OF their SER
vices. as in time Of war would render such
unreliable docks intolerable. The eNpe-
rience of the government has shown that
while Slight repairs to a timber dry dock
can be made without serious interruption
in their use. the extensive repairs which
are inevitable after the lapse of COMPARE
lively few years take them out Of service
for docking vessels for long periods of time
The masonry dry docks, on the contrary
require very slight and infrequent repairs
and these do not take them out of service
for docking ships. In only a single in
stance in the naval service has a masonry
dry dock been thrown out of service for
any considerable time on account Of re-
pairs.
Risk to Vessels.
Again, the peculiar and dangerous fail
ures to which large and deep timber dry
docks. such are used in the navy are
liable. involve great risk to very costly
vessels. and indeed. in some instances to
the lives of those employed in the docks.
The timber becomes decayed, and the con-
struction Is such that its hold upon the
earth, which is never great is liable 10 be
much lessened from the removal or loosen
ing OF the soil. due to leakage. and both
ccnspire to render its resistance to the
hNdrostatic pressure which is always pres
ent, precarious When failure occurs il is
liable to involve vital parts of the struc-
ture and to be extensive In its limits and
onereln lies the great danger of extensive
ana costly injury to the dock and to what
1t max contain. Risks of this kind are not
inherent in masonry dry docks.
Wood Ultimately More Costly.
While the first cost of a timber dry dock
is much less than that of one of masonry,
the ultimate cost Is greater. To keep a
timber dry dock in good repair and safe
condition requires large OUTLAWS after the
lapse of few years, and almost complete
renewal takes place before very many have
elapsed. The timber dry docks belonging
to the navy. of which we now have six,
the oldest being only ten years of age are
proving to be very costly structures TO
maintain, far exceeding in this respect
the masonry docks. In the past ten years
timber dry docks in use from four to ten
years, for current repairs to those por-
IONS distinctive of timber dry docks eight
times as much as has been spent SINH
larry upon its four masonry dry docks dur
ing the same period. and this comparison
excludes the extraordinary repairs to tim
Der dock No, at the New York navy
yard, which failed Immediately after its ac-
ceptance. and those of large extent in
progress upon timber dock at New York
and upon the timber dock at League Island
Pa
The stone and concrete docks can be
built in period of time little greater than
that consumed in constructing timber dry
docks. Altogether the superiority of ma
sonry dry docks for the naval service over
those of timber is so manifest in the mat
tiers of permanence, safety. cost and reaii-
ness for service at all times. and so fully r
proven in IFS experience that the bureau
hopes Congress will authorize the
contemplated in this bill
THE department concurs fully in the
foregoing. and accordingly commends the
bill 10 the favorable consideration of The
committee. In this connection attention is
invited to the views of the department as
in my annual report to the Presi-
dent for the fiscal year ending June 20
last, page ~. on this subject and to the
extended remarks of the chief Of the bureau
OF yards and docks thereon in his annual
report to the department for the SANG
period, page t.3 ct seq