Ex. Doc. No. 11.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

FLOATING DRY DOCKS.

MESSAGE

FROM THE

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,

TRANSMITTTING

A report from the Secretary of the Navy in relation to the construction of Floating Dry Docks at Pensacola, Philadelphia, and Kittery.

DECEMBER 22, 1847.

Read, and referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I communicate, herewith, a report of the Secretary of the Navy, containing a statement of the measures which have been taken in execution of the act of 3d March last, relating to the construction of floating dry docks at Pensacola, Philadelphia, and Kittery. JAMES K. POLK.

WASHINGTON, December 22, 1847.

NAVY DEPARTMENT,

December 21, 1847.

SIR: In accordance with the purpose suggested in my annual report, I have the honor to submit a report of the measures taken by the department, in execution of the act of Congress of the third of March last, on the subject of floating dry docks, with appendages, at Philadelphia, Kittery, and Pensacola.

In the act making the annual appropriations for the naval service for the year ending the thirtieth of June, 1848, is the following:

That the Secretary of the Navy is hereby directed to cause to be constructed at each of the navy yards at Kittery, Philadelphia, and Pensacola, a floating dry dock for ships of the line, with basin and railways at Philadelphia, and reference thereto at the other places, on such plan as may be preferred by the Secretary of the Navy; the said dock at Pensacola to be completed with all possible despatch; and the sum of fifty thousand dollars is hereby

appropriated towards said dock at Kittery; fifty thousand dollars owards said dock at Philadelphia, and two hundred and fifty thousand dollars towards said dock at Pensacola; out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated."

This enactment imposed on the Secretary of the Navy the duty of causing to be constructed at the several navy yards named, the structures specified, on such plan as may be preferred by him; and the means applicable to this object, were the sums of money respectively appropriated for the purpose; that is to say, two hundred and fifty thousand dollars at Pensacola, and fifty thousand dollars each for Philadelphia and Kittery. The preliminary inquiry was, necessarily, what plan of floating dry dock was entitled to preference for construction at each of the three navy yards. While I could not construe the act as adopting any particular plan, I did regard it as a fair interpretation, that the plan preferred and selected by the department was to be adopted for each of the places in exclusion of all others.

This inquiry involved scientific and mechanical investigations which I did not feel qualified to conduct to satisfactory results; and it was desirable, that the proprietors of the several plans of floating dry docks should present, with their own explanations and specifications, their respective inventions for consideration. Undermy direction, the chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks addressed a letter to each of the several proprietors or agents who had offered their plans of docks to the government, requesting them to state the terms, respectively, on which they would construct a dock upon their several plans, with and without basin and railways, and to submit specifications of their plans in detail. They were, also, requested to state the price at which they would each sell to the government the use of their respective patent privileges in the construction of the proposed docks.

Not content to rely on my own judgment in deciding on the plan of floating dry docks to be preferred, the adaptation of which for ships of war of very large displacement was believed to be yet untried, the department called to its aid a board composed of two experienced captains in the navy, two scientific engineers of established character, and one experienced naval constructor, all of them gentlemen well known to the country for sound judgment and professional attainment, and whose opinions on the subject of the relative merits of competing plans of floating dry docks I had previously ascertained to be free from bias.

The board assembled at Washington, and, on the 29th of April last, instructions were given by my direction on the several points of inquiry which were deemed important in the investigation to be made by them. A copy of these instructions is transmitted herewith. With these instructions, the Bureau of Yards. and Docks placed in the hands of the board all papers received 'from the several proprietors of patented plans of floating docks, or their agents.

The board attentively considered the propositions, plans, and specifications submitted; received the explanations of such of the

parties, or their agents, or attornies as desired to be heard; examined models, prints and drawings; visited the navy yards at Philadelphia and Kittery, and selected proper sites at each; examined accurate charts of the Bay of Pensacola, and reports of former commissions; and witnessed at New York the process of docking and undocking vessels on the only two plans which were known to be in practical operation; and, after deliberation, reported to the department, on the 3d day of June last, the result of their investigation. A copy of this report is also herewith submitted.

As the report embodies the substance of the several propositions from proprietors of plans of floating docks, it is not deemed necessary to transmit copies of these voluminous papers with this report; but they, or those relating to any particular plans of docks, will be communicated to the committees of Congress, if they shall be required.

The report of the board was referred to the Bureau of Yards and Docks for an opinion, and, on the 18th of June, a report was made by the chief of that bureau, a copy of which is herewith transmitted.

The law imposed on the department the duty of causing floating dry docks to be constructed, as specified, at the several navy yards named. It is known that at Philadelphia, Kittery, and Pensacola, there are regularly organized establishments for the purposes of construction and repair, with officers, naval constructors, mechanics, and laborers, for whose salaries and pay appropriations are annually made, and were made in the same act which contains the appropriations for the construction of the floating dry docks.

As a general rule, I cannot entertain a doubt that all work of construction connected with the naval service, directed by law to be done under control of the Navy Department, must be done (at the yards) under the direction of the officers, and with the labor and materials employed and purchased as other public work at the navy yards is done, unless the law directs it to be done by contract. This position is confirmed by the act of August 10th, 1846, which authorizes the President, in certain cases, to cause war steamers to be built by private contract, instead of being built at the navy yards, as otherwise would have been necessary.

Each of the several plans of dock submitted to the department was a patented invention; and good faith would not permit me to invade a patent right, by using a patented plan of construction, without the consent of the proprietors. The proprietors of the two plans of dock, known as the balance and sectional docks, in their propositions in answer to the invitation of the department, made in March last, had not specified any price at which the right to use either patent right would be sold to the department; and the prices contained in their proposals for construction by contract, greatly exceeded the sums appropriated for the object at the three named yards. The chief of the Bureau of Yards, and Docks, under my direction, again addressed to the respective proprietors of these two plans a communication calling their attention to this point of inquiry, and requesting them to state the price at which

the government would be permitted to use the patent privilege in constructing the docks authorized. They declined to make such an arrangement, but repeated the offer to contract for the execution of the work.

To execute the law, without a violation of a patent right, the department had no alternative but to cause the construction to be made by contract with the proprietors of one or other of the preferable plans of docks, on their own terms. Until the department was prepated to enter into such contract, the public interest forbade the decision of preference between these two plans. Keeping that question open was the only means of securing any competition on the subject.

As I did not perceive in the law authority to enter into contract, and the appropriations were not adequate to meet the necessary expenditures, I doubted my authority to make such contract, under the restrictions imposed on the executive departments of the government by the sixth section of the act of Congress of May 1, 1820, which deelares, that "no contract shall hereafter be made by the Secretary of State, or of the Treasury, or of the Department of War, or of the Navy, except under a law authorizing the same, or under an appropriation adequate to its fulfilment; and excepting, also, contracts for the subsistence and clothing of the army or navy, and contracts by the quartermaster's department, which may be made by the secretaries of those departments."

I asked the opinion of the Attorney General on the questions involved, and he came to the conclusion that the law did not confer the authority. In this view of the law I entirely concurred. I transmit copies of my letter to the Attorney General, and of his reply communicating his opinion.

Unable to procure the privilege of using the patented plan of dock which might be deemed preferable, and inhibited by law from entering into contract for the execution of the work, the department, anxious to the extent of its power, to carry into execution the requirements of the act of Congress, directed the Bureau of Yards and Docks to contract within the appropriations, after advertisement, for the delivery of such materials at each of the three, navy yards designated, as would be suitable for either the balance or sectional docks, or for other naval purposes. These contracts have been made according to law.

After the opinion of the Attorney General had been received, alternative proposals for constructing the dock at Pensacola, by contract, were submitted by the proprietor of the balance dock, having direct reference to the appropriation, but dependent on material modifications of the dimensions proposed by the department, in the circular of the 19th of March. These were declined, because it was believed that the prescribed dimensions and capacity were essential to the utility of the dock for the naval service, and that the purpose of the law was to secure a suitable dock for vessels of the largest size in the navy. It seemed to me also to be just and proper that, if the terms were modified, the proprietors of other plans should have the like opportunity of submitting proposals,

and I was unwilling to contract for a dock at one place, until the department was prepared to execute the law at the others.

It becomes necessary, for the reasons stated in this report, that the subject should be submitted to Congress, for such enlargement of the powers conferred on the department by existing laws, or such increase of the appropriations made, as may be deemed adequate to the fulfilment of its objects; and I respectfully ask that this may be done.

On the question of the most suitable plan of dry dock for naval purposes, my opinion officially formed in 1844, in favor of the permanent stone dock as preferable to all others, is unchanged. Of the relative merits of the balance and sectional docks, entertaining this opinion, I would have much hesitation in forming a decided and satisfactory judgment. They are both constructed on ingenious principles, and are both extensively used by the mercantile marine; but I may add, without injustice, that neither of them, in my judgment, has been so far tested, or can be so constructed, as to be regarded as proper substitutes for the use of the government for the permanent stone dock, whatever may be their values as auxiliaries. With every disposition to meet the wishes of Congress in execucution of the laws, I deem it not unreasonable to ask that, in the event of adequate appropriations being made, or of legislative direction to contract with a patentee being given, for the construction of the floating dry docks, and for the necessary preparations for their secure operation, that Congress will, by determining on the particular plans of dock, and prescribing the pecuniary price to be paid, relieve me from the duty of selection.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, J. Y. MASON. To the PRESIDENT.

NAVY DEPARTMENT,

April 29, 1847.

SIR: The board, of which you will act as president, having been convened "for the purpose of deliberating upon the subject of dry docks, for the naval service," in accordance with the directions of the department of the 19th instant, I have the honor to communicate the following extract from the act of Congress, of March 3,

1847.

"That the Secretary of the Navy is hereby directed to cause to be constructed, at each of the navy yards at Kittery, Philadelphia, and Pensacola, a floating dry dock for ships of the line, with basin and railways at Philadelphia, and reference thereto at the other places, on such plan as may be preferred by the Secretary of the Navy. The said dock at Pensacola to be completed with all poss.ble despatch, and the sum of fifty thousand dollars is hereby appropriated towards said dock at Kittery; fifty thousand dollars towards said dock at Philadelphia, and two hundred and fifty