}0^. ^%\> ^.v/uleur □ Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag6e □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculde □ Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque □ Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur n n Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait pos;.ible, ces pagos n'ont pas 6t6 film^es. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur I I Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/oi Pages restaur^es et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxei P&ges d^colordes, tachet^es ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages d^tach^es I — I Pages restored and/or laminated/ I 1 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ I I Showthrough/ Transparence □ Quality of print varies/ Quality indgale de I'impression I I Includes supplementary material/ □ Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially ob&icured by ertata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 film6es d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. n Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires; / This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y MMi^^ i5y IfiX ?ox 24X 28X 32X tails t du odifier ' une mage The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. L'euemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la g6n6rosit6 de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet^ de I'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont film^s en commengant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commengant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ♦> (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V Imeaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: !e symbole — *> signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed a* different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film6s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmd d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n^cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. artata I to t ) pelure, on d n 32X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ^TV^ ^.tC DEY DOCKS. f^tcy/^ REPORTS ON iPROiPOSEiD jDR^y idook: I'dK iHE j-^ORT OF Halifax, ]Nf. ^., CONTAINING DESCRIPTIONS OF SEVERAL STONE. WOODEN AND IRON DOCKS, l^itlifa.v : NOVA SCOTIA TKTXTTX(T COMPANY, 1S83. PRELIMINARY REPORT •OH The Proposed Halifax Dry Dock, AND RE:r>oKT -9S DOCKS. BT E. H. KEATING, M. Inst. C. E., Member o: tne Amerioan Society of Civil Engineers. CITY ENGINEER. PUBLISHED BY SANCTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. Halifax : .\OVA SCOTIA PRINTING COMPANY, 1883, PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THB Proposed Graving Dock for the Port of Halifax. City Enginp:eu's Office, (Jth November, 1882. The following is a list of the papers which have been sent to ine by the City Clerk, together with a copy of a resolution of Council dated 1st November, requiring a leport upon the same to the Council at its next meeting : — 1. Letter from W. Cramp & Sons, of New York, dated 31st May, 1882. 2. Letter from J. E. Simpson & Co., of New York, dated 7th June, 1882, containing an otter to build one of " Simpson's Docks," and enclosing prospectus for a " Dry Dock and Improve- ment Company," on Simpson's plan. 3. Lettir from William Morris. Esq., C. E., dated l7th July, 1882, enclosing proposal of Messrs. Kinipple & Morris, M. M. Inst, C. E , dated 1.5th July, 1882, to form a company to build a Stone Graving Dock. 4. Letter from His Honor the Recorder, dated 17th July, 1882, on the proposal of Messrs. Kinipple Sl Morris. 5. Report of the Dock Committee, 20th Jul}^ 1882, and Report of " The Joint Comniittee on Dry Dock," I8th July, 1882. 6. Letter from W. Morris, C. E., 15th August, 1882. 7. Letter from W. Morris, C. E., enclosing rough outline plan of Dock, as proposed by Messrs. Kinipple & Morris, dated lOth August, 1882. 1. The letter from Messrs. Cramp, (Ship and Engine Building Company,) of New York, is one recommending " Simpson's Improved Dry Dock." It states that they have owned and operated one of these docks in Pliiladelphia ' for the past six years without intormission," and also that they have operated another of the same description durinj^ the past winter, and thiougli the most nnfavoiable weather in Brooklyn, N. Y., " with the most satisfactory results." It condenms stone as a material of construction for docks in a cold and cliangeable climates, and advocates the use of wood, of which Simpson's docks are composed. 2. J. E. Simpson Sc Oo.'s letter is an offer to build one of " Simpson's Improved Docks," liaving a Length at top of G50 feet. Wiing out of the uble in limits, uer. locks in !;5.00 to I. (The ,ter and rs, must ed dock of about \, would the cost E,EFORT OK American Dry Docks. • ■> -t.t ii«..Hbi..i*«n rf .«i u .i l^«.>*»i H »M M ari probable selected, the plan interest.'* event of >n of the neer. o To rec of pel stei stri hav the acc( by , old. docl woo cone REPORT OS AN Official Inspection of several American Graving Docks, with a viev/ to Determine the Best Description of Dock for the Port of Halifax, N. S. City Engineer's Office, ) Halifax, N. S., !22nd January, 188 J. j To His Worship the Mayor and City Council : Gentlemen, — In compliance with your instructions, I have recently visited all the permanent graving or dry docks south of this Port, as far as Baltimore. As far as I have been able to ascertain, there are only twelve permanent dry docks along the Atlantic coast of North America, and but two of these are capable of taking in the largest ocean steamships. These docks are situated at the following ports : 2 at Portland, Maine. 4 at Boston, Massachusetts. 3 at New York, N. Y. 1 at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1 at Baltimore, Maryland. 1 at Norfolk, Virginia. Three of these are stone docks, the others are timber structures. The stnne docks are all old structures, the last one built having been finished in August, 1851. They are the property of the United States Government, and were constructed for the accommodation of ships of war. The wooden docks w^ere all built by J. E. Simpson & Co., and range from two to twenty-nine years old. In addition to these, there is, I am informed, a large graving dock on the Pacific coast, built in the solid rock, and faced with wood. The United States Government are also building a concrete dock faced with granite at Mare Island, California. There are no graving docks in Canada fc r the accommodation of ocean shipping, but two are now in course of construction, one at Quebec and one at Esquimalt, British Columbia. Both of these are to be stone structures. The above are all the permanent dry docks in North America (for the use of ocean ships) of which I have been able to obtain any information. The docks visited by me were at Quebec, Portland, Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore. THE QUEBEC DRY DOCK. This dock is being constructed under an Act of the Dominion Parliament, 38 Victoria, Chapter 56. As I understand this Act, the Government of Canada has undertaken to raise by loan $500,000, and to hand this money qver to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners in instalments as may be required for the purposes of construction. The net income received in rates, tolls and dues (which I presume is the balance left after paying running expenses) is to be paid by the Commissioners to the Dominion Government, and to be used — so far as it will go — in the payment of interest at 5 per cent, on the $500,000 and to the formation of a sinking fund. In the event of the money so paid by the Commissioners to the Government not being sufficient to meet the interest in any year, the Commissioners must provide out of any other funds at their disposal a sum not exceeding $10,000 per annum, if the state of their finances will permit of this being done. If Halifax could obtain a loan of an equal amount on similar favorable terms, it is perhaps needless to point out that no City subsidy would be required. The dock is completed for about two-tliirds of its length, measured from the head, and as far as could be inspected at the date of my visit (24th November last) the work done appeared of excellent character. Unfortunately, there were a few inches of snow upon the top of the masonry. Building operations had ceased for the season, and the works were flooded with water to the depth of about twelve feet above the floor of the dock. The most diflieiilt and important portion of the dock at the entrance, the engine house and the chimney have yet to be built, but all the matei'ials are on the ground, and the Engineer expects to bring the whole to successful completion by the close of the next working season. A great deal of difficulty was encountered — in preparing for the construction of the caisson chamber and other portions of the work near the entrance — by reason of inequalities in the bottom and sand, entailing an additional expense of about $70,000 for a new coffer dam. Work was commenced upon this dock in November, 1877, and by the contract was to have been completed on the 1st June, lation n,one )th of North n able ere at jmore. minion is Act, y loan arbour irposes id dues unning minion lyment ition of by the to meet out of 110,000 s being 3unt on )ut that length, d at the ppeared : inches ons had vater to The ntrance, but all pects to he next red — in id other ualities of about 1 fcr, 1877, st June, 1882, for $330,953.80, not including the caisson and pumping machinery, the contracts for which amounted to $61,331.45, or a total of 5*392,285.34 ; to this must be added other sums, as given in table C. following, and the foot-note under it, as it is now estimated that the total cost of the works on completion will amount to about $000,000. $375,000 liave been expended up to date, and of this sura the entrance works and portions of the dock yet incomplete have cost about $100,000. Dredging is done for $1 per cubic yard, and the excavations, which are nearly all rock, are taken out under the contract at 60 cents per yard, or about one-half what the cost would be in Halifax. The walls are built of Portland cement concrete, which co.sts $4 per cubic yard, and these walls are faced with heavy blocks of lime stone, from the quarries of St. Vincent de Paul, near Montreal. The stone has to be brought about 120 miles by rail, and the price paid for it — built in place — is about $15 for the cubic yard, or about the same as granite would cost in this city. Owing to the extreme rise and fall of the tides at Quebec, it is not intended to start the pumps in operation until the water falls to near low-tide level. This arrangement, although no doubt good in Quebec, would not answer here, as it entails great loss of time in docking a ship. By the official published returns it appears that the harbour of Quebec was closed against navigation, by ice, from 27th November, 1880, to the 2Gth April, 1881, and was again closed on the 28th November, 1881. It is evident, therefore, that the dock must remain sealed and useless for five months out of the vear, and further that, although it is located in a colder climate than ours, it can never be subjected to the same severe tests which a similai* structure would undergo in this Port, because here it would be required for constant use throughotit the whole yeai", while there all the portions of the dock below tide level are protected from the action of frost by being submerged. Details as to the size of this and other docks, the dates of comniencouient and completion, the desciiption and capacity of the pumps, cost, and amount of business done by each, the rise and fall of tides, and other paiticulars will be found in the tables A. B. and C. following. PORTLAND DRY DOCKS. The construction of a large wooden dry dock at Portland was undertaken by a local coTiipany in 1800, on an estimated cost of $145,000. After the necessary lands had been secured, and building operations were about to commence a large portion of the city was destroyed by fire. The dock promoters and shareholders being heavy losers by this fire, sold their lands, works and charter to J. E. Simpson & Co., who, in 1870, com- pleted the dock — as far as 1 can learn — upon the same plan as was originally contemplated. This, like all other of Simpson's docks, rests upon a pile foundation. The excavations were in soft material, represented as mud and silt. The site selected was out in the harbor at a place where the water was shallow. A cofter dam was first constructed surrounding the whole of the proposed dock, the excavations were then made within this enclosure, and the building operations were then carried on without any serious difficulty. The foundation piles are of spruce, spaced a few feet apart ; heavy squared timbers running transversely across the dock, rest upon the top of the piles; these timbers constitute the frame-work or skeleton of the dock, they are firmly secured to the heads of the piles and to land-ties along the sides, so as to overcome any tendency there might bo to collapse or to thrust the side., of the structure inwards. Additional piles are driven along the bottom to support the keel-blocks. The transverse timbers, where they run from the bottom of the dock to the top, slope at an angle of about 45 degrees, and are termed braces. Upon these braces the altars which form the sides of the dock are laid and secured, they are composed of ordinary pine and spruce, and have now been in the work about 13 years, during which time very little money has been expended in repairs. There are some signs of decav now visible in the wood above tide-level, and in my judgment a few thousands of dollars will before long have to be expended to maintain the structure in a good state of repair. As the wooden altars which form the inside face of the dock were carried upwards — in the construction — clay puddle was rammed in solidly behind them for a few feet in thickness. All of the wooden docks along the Atlantic coast of America have been built substantially in the above manner, the clay puddle back of the altars and the outside coffer dam — which is left in place as far as it can be — being depended upon to keep the structures tight. The entrance is closed by a floating wooden caisson, which fits in a groove against a rubber packing and forms a perfectly tight joint. From two to three men usually handle the caisson in ordinary weather, but if it should be blowing hard while being moved more are sometimes required. The permanent staff" consists of three men, the Dock Master, the Engineer and the Fireman, who also operate a smaller dock. No, 2, which is situated along side of the above, or No. I dock. Both of these docks are now owned and operated by the same company, who purchased the works a little more than a year ] at of is bu no^ fro lib( lanfls, , com- lan as a pile isented iv at a LS first ik, the nd the serious iw feet OSS the istitnte secured s, so as ) thrust driven nsverse to the braces. 10 dock ino and , during repairs. 1 above ars vvill re in a (J inside n — cUiy feet in A.merica ;lio clay vhich is to keep , which )erfectly caisson d while Master, ler dock, I dock, he same 1 a year ago. No. 2 dock is somewhat differently constructed from No. 1, the sides being planked instead of arranged in low altars and the entrance is closed by a lowering gate, hinged at the bottom, and over which the vessels pass to enter the dock. The accompanying tables give all the further information which I have been able to obtain respecting each of these docks. Some of my questions could not be answered by the dock officials, as the present company has been in possession of the works for but a shoit period of time. Four steamers, two ships and two barques were docked during the nmnth of November last by the company, and both docks are said to be kept pretty steadily employed, although it is also stated that the works do not pay a fair rate of interest on the money invested in them. CHARLESTOWN NAVV-YARD DO(JK —BOSTON. This appears to have been the first peimanent dry dock built in North America. It was conimenccd in 1827 anu finished in 1832, at a cost of $077,000. The walls are of heavy masonry, faced with dressed granite and backed with rubble. The dock was lengthened 65 feet in 1857-8 and 9, at a cost of $22.3,000. Nearly $73,000 have been expended in repairs to the pumps, engines, gates andmasonrysincel800,and,Iunderstand,trifling amounts previous to that date. Of this latter amount spent in repairs, it is stated that about $27,000 was wasted on the masonry alone, but the circumstances under which this happened were not fully explained. If, however, this statement is correct, the proper amount to place for repairs would be $40,000 (instead of $73,000) which would give about $900, or one-tenth of one per cent, per annum for this item. The entrance is closed b}' a pair of wooden gates and also a floating wooden caisson, both of which have been in use since the dock was completed, or for a period of fifty years, but they will not be of service much longer. Sea worms have not attacked the woodwork, owing to the water in the vicinity being largely impregnated with sewage. Generall}' speaking, the masonry is in fair condition, except at the entrance, where it has been injured by an accident. Some of the joints have been opened by the action of frost, and there is some leakage along the bottom of the walls and at the head, but nothing of a serious nature. The total amount estimated as now required for repairs — by the dock officials — is $05,000 ; but from this amount $8,000 for new gates and $32,000 for a new caisson must be deducted in order to arrive at the estimated cost of repairs to the masonry, which will then stand at $25,000. It is a well known fact that Governments are, as a rule, more liberal in their expenditures of money on engineering v^orks thau 8 private corporations, and my opinion is that if this dock were in the hands of a company, the whole, or at least the greater part of the cont(Mnplatod expenditure of $25,000 would be saved for many years to come. EAST BOSTON DRY DOCKS, There are three timber dry docks lying side by side at East Boston, which are owned and operated by a private companyi vShips are not repaired by the company and they have no warehouses for the stora''e of car(;oes in the vicinity of their docks. The working expenses are given at Sl.OOO per month, not including rates and taxes, or at $2,000 including these, and the earnings are said to range from $2,000 to $4,500 per month. The capital stock is $350,000, and the works are .said to pay tivft per cent, in dividends. For repairs and renewals the Secretary of the company thinks an allowance of one-half per cent, or aboiit $1,750 per annum would be ample to cover every contingency. The permanent staff to work the three docks consists of five men — Superintendent, Dock Master, Engineer, Fireman an CO CO e . a B O in 00 1 a oo 00 a S ,-« r4 .3 CO S 2 c^ " 8 I = • •5 ►. a o 55 .s <• o iH f-l f-4 e^ <» o> ■4< a> o) r-< e> o> en ^J? 3* «• to ■a *a M e» rH §3 SJSJ5 ^S3SSSlfs S? J5 t; W (M ^ 94 ^ 8 Co o 00 « s CO ^» CO to lA OO OO ^ -^ •^ ■«< £ S S 9 SIAin OOQUSOQOOQ -«'Ca «»4 s U3 s g§ 8 8 Its 5 !5 in g g ■4J 8 8 IH s g 1 m ■^ 8 1-1 c5 3 l-H i-H i-H rH rH rH S •pudq o^ aAoojS jauui uiojj 'mo) )oq api^Suaq 'pauadaap qijdaa -pauaqi8na| 'aoi()anj)8aoa jo i«ua;Bi\[ 'jaquin^ii u < ■J in S o o •>»< w -«t< 1ft 4i s sa CO S S W IN rH o o o Q o in t- c5 '55 1ft »-- oj eo «ft «e ■* ■* ■* 00 « g s « (N rH 00 ?? g S •^ f ■* P5 s 9* 2 « ■-f in fO M rH -«1 00 lA t» 1ft (N 50 CO rH M ■V Ift -V ^ ^ a «*4 iH o o o o o o o 90 ■«»• o O O o o o o JS © o o o 8 o rH rH o O O o 1 2 03 1 1 1 4) a en r3 o o o o -3 o o a a 2o a o i-t f-" 04 rH rH e» « tH r-l w rH rH f> rH o a r rH c« eo <♦ m oi a o at & 55 > a o o s PQ Q ■ 'a. a el .s *« Oi P4 to CO »« 00 o> 'S ?l a u ^ -s O tT a •-< :S 4> £ a 55 it 55 15 E 8 -S • I ^ it* 1-1 »o «o gj gi s? ^ ^ 00 -* •^ s 00 s in ^ 8 1-1 •"* . OJ Ol -* ■* e* s r- 00 •-• 5 5 S o Q O o O O rs 01 « o c c o o o ■4^ 4^ !S 05 rH r-» 9« a 4) b ■t I o ©< w V 4§ .a. .1 '^ •I a, 1 -«S a* en 01 M I, A.durcio 5ino(i Xq pajindaj 8(l|qH ajy $--JA'3I10 40J jjoop ■$ -•(llljSXjIlllipjO un ^ui?|r)op jo jroo '(l|qs v >|r>op 0} « lit paiJOOp S[D8 •K3A jio -OfJ a^«J3AV sp!) qJljqiCjviiipjo ?tl JS^H.tt '>|3op jno diiind o) pajjnhsj gjiioq }0 Joqtuu{j •Riio|[nS ii; 'ainuiiu jadsdiunci uiniu'ju X^ptidva paiiiquioo 'Rdiund niT.ia ]o puiji ■Rdiund UI8UI }0 jaqiuiijii •J— 'A'lUO Unop o^ BJjiidoj jo( papanti a\ou urns aicuiixojddy "iiipninu; loii ^ -'saiudon JO 1R03 •^— •ifniuadasp io iiuiuoqiSuai jo isoo •g— 'jsoo [i;u|8|.io Jiiiipijnq u) Rqiuo}^ °p3»(li)(UUI03 U3q.v\ -UO|)dU3R3Q 'jaquiu^ S 8 o I" ^ •2 ° ^1 o O * OS (- § O i I 6 -^ ■poinas -uji o S5 o iS OOO'SI * g oT 2 S S 5 •1 CO M 11 n CO Q I i o =>. o o o S3 CO >-. *f I i §•* eo >»• f1 n o t~ ffi eo 40 fe 2< s ;s !a 00 en 00 OS 00 ri" 1111 if 'fi s ^ ^ 'fi •* ^ lO 3; s « 00 C» QO o o S oa i? ^ So S I- O) 00 00 ^ is c o <-) Fl C4 i-l 11 »l CO II r-i (N i1 11 i1 II c C _£ •s »5 c« I > m 55 c c •a CM o a o H »< OO c 1 16 TABLE C. Comparative cod oj Stone Dry Docks at Quebec, and at the Nai*y Yards of Boston, Norfolk and New York, CLASSIFICATION. Quebec. Ijoston. (Charlcstown Navy Yard.) Norfolk. New York. Offices Amount. Amount. $50,367 45 43.477 04 21,191 71 19,886 03 18.860 61 32,0.55 45 240,4.56 18 24.301 22 47,351 97 60.731 88 14.861 88 38,1.14 55 14.266 09 20,558 08 Amount. $,37..365 92 52,575 73 .33.803 46 24.995 09 31 6t)6 33 .53,572 33 4.55.049 06 13.762 02 77,744 55 46.709 97 29.945 22 3;J.901 97 8,134 81 11,468 72 Amount $54,131 15 Tools and Fixtures Tcmiiorarv drainage *$32,000 00 29,694 37 67,884 20 Pile wharves 9,423 60 Coffer dam 17,066 78 60,641 15 1 193,363 50 37,699 55 245,969 22 Excavations 141.425 49 Masonry 736,611 49 Culvert and well 43,519 89 Foundations 153.674 36 Gates or Caissons 158 884 61 Permanent drainage 84. 5-20 84 Engine House 16,325,74 217.043 56 Removing Cofferdam 26,151 ,38 Et.ibanitment 15,543 62 Timber work ii.42i 18 15.160 12 16.975 42 20,000 00 Iron work Entrance at head Contingent 30,609 84 35,041 55 19,020 83 Totals $420,653 44 $677,089 98 $945,676 73 $2003.498 61 • Cost of pumping macliinery alone. - Note. — The Quebec dock is estimated to cost, when completed, ahoui $600,000. The figures given for the Quebec dock are the contrnct amounts, except for tlie caisson, to which the duty ($7,154.25) and freight ($1,213.85) have been addeil. There must ftlso be added about $10,000 for putting the caisson together and in place, — also the the following sums : alwut $35,000 for extras on coffer dam, $67,000 ft)r iin additional eoffer duni, and $67,3.50 for engineering expenses. Inspectors wages and sundries. To the Boston dock should be addeci $223,000 for lengthening 65 feet, and $73,000 for repairs. To the New York dock should be added about |15,000 for repairs and $21,000 for repairs to gates and caisson. 1 17 he Navy Jew York. Amount. $54,131 15 29,694 37 67,884 20 9,423 60 24.5,969 22 141.425 49 7;i6,611 49 43, .519 89 1.53.674 36 158 884 61 84. 5-20 84 217.043 56 26,151 38 15,543 62 19,020 83 52003.498 61 ut $600,000. the caisson. There must ;e,— also the n additional indiies. and $73,000 I $21,000 for The opinions of Civil Enjrineers — who have been or are con- nected with different dry docks — vary widely as to the relative merits of wood and stone for con.struction purposes. Some prefer wood solel}' on the score of economy in the first cost, others give it their preference on account of various alleged advantages, and would adhere to it even if a stone structure could be built as cheaplv, while others again say, " adopt stone if you can, and have nothing to do with wood." I had the good fortune to meet the Chief Naval Constructor of the United States and several of the constructors attached to different navv-vards. These gentlemen have the direct charge of docking the ships of war, and are constantly supervising work done in and about the Government stone docks, their opinions, consequently, ought to be of considerable value. They all expressed a high opinion of wooden docks, some very sttongly, others gave reasons for their preference which — from an engi- neering point of view — might be considered insufticient,an(^ others thought the advantage lay solely in the saving effected in the first cost. A very strong argument advanced was, that the Government contemplate extending, by the use of timber, one of their existing stone docks, but this statement was not confirmed by any of the Government Engineers. The strongpst objection, however, against the use of stone was that the existing granite docks had caused the death of many men by reason of their constant dampness. The chief points of advantage of wooden docks over those of stone are said to be : 1st. That they are dryer anfl consequently more comfortable and healthy for the working men. 2nd. That the wooden dock is cooler in summer and warmer in wiiiter than the stone one ; because the stone gets so hot under a summer sun that it can scarcely be touched, while in winter the sides of the dock are coated with ice. 3id. That ice, if it should form on a wooden altar, is much easier removed than it could be from stone. 4th. That the facilities afforded to the workmen — both in docking p, ship and in passing in and out of the dock at any point, while repairing her — by reason of the low and narrow altars* — are superior to those of any existing stone docks, and consequently, that the operating expenses are greatly reduced. oth. That the form of the altars also lenders all cutting of .shores unnecessary. Gth. That the annual cost of repairs is less than for a stone dock. • stone docks hrving low and narrow altars from bottom 'jo top— the same as the American wooden docks— are said to exist in some European ports. 18 7th. That even if the timber face of the dock should decay and require renewal every twenty years or leas, the interest on the saving in the first cost would be much more than sufficient to meet this contingency. 8th. That a wooden dock can be built at a cost of from one-third to one-half thai of a stone structure of similar size. The above arguments are advanced by the advocates of wooden docks, after comparing modern and new timber struc- tures with comparativel}' old and imperfectly constructed docks of stone, and I do not think the comparison a fair one. There are no modern stone docks yet completed on this side of the Atlantic to which reference can be had in order, justly, to com- pare the merits of each style. The old stone docks in Boston and New York are clearly objectionable on account of their danjpness, and the cause of this dampness is largely attributable to the absence of any provision — in the original plans — for underdrainage. If proper provision be made, in this respect, from the inception of the works to their completion, and the best hydraulic cement be used for mortar, [ can see no reason why a stone dock, or one of brick, or one of concrete throughout, could not be made dry and free from leakage and the effects of frost. With the leakage removed the accumu- lations of ice on the sides and floor of the dock would also be removed, except so far as rain and sleet might cause trouble, and in that case the difficulty would be quite as great in the wooden as in the stone structure, except that the ice would remain longer clinging to the stone than to the wood. The advantages claimed as to the low and narrow altars can be equally applied to a stone dock, because the stones can be dressed to that shape as well as to any other, and iher^ifore all cutting of shores can be avoided in the stone as well as in the the timber structure. As to the 0th, 7th and 8th items of advantage, they are partly matters of calculation, and require to be carefully considered. If a stone dock were built in such a manner that the joints w^ere all perfect and tight, and all water could be drained from the back of the masonry so that frost could not affect it, the cost of repaiis in that case would be nothing, as it is frost alone which has caused the whole trouble in the maintenance of American stone docks. " A Board of Inspectors," consisting of officers of the Navy, Civil Enyineers and Naval Constructors, appointed by the United States Navy Department, about a year ago, to examine carefully and give their opinion upon " Simpson's timber docks," stated in their official report that " it would appear that the life " of timber docks is as yet, unknown, though the substructure, " which is kept constantly wet, can be said to be practically 10 Id decay terest on sufficient of from ' size, ocates of )er struc- ,ed docks ?. There le of the , to com- e clearly se of this provision provision :s to their mortar, [ 3r one of n leakage i accumu- Id also be )uble, and J wooden lin longer dtars can es can be rofore all as in the are partly dered. Lh«' joints ined fiom ct it, the •ost alone enanco of ,he Navy, I by the » examine >er docks," at the life )structure, practically "imperishable. Judging from all the information obtainable, " we are of the opinion that the repairs of a timber dock of good " quality, of good materials and wtdl built, would be insignificant " for a period of say twenty years, when it would probably be " found necessary to renew all the wood work above high water *' level, and the face timber above half tide level. The relative " average j'early cost of repairs of these decks — as now con- •' structed — and the ordinary stone docka, in our opinion would "be in favor of the timber docks, especially in latitudes above " the frost line. The manner and cost of operating does not "appear to differ materially from other kinds of well-constructed "excavated docks." The question of the action of sea or ship worms upon the wood work of a timber dock does not appear to have been alluded to in the above-mentioned report, and the probable reason was that these worms have never been known to attack the wood work of any of these docks. It is easy to account for this, as all sea worms require a constant nupply of salt water to keep them alive. The Teredo lives almost entirely under water, below tide level, (and this species of worm exists only to a limited extent and does not thrive in the Harbour of Halifax,) while the little Limnoi'ia, our greatest pest, commits his ravages between low and high water mark, and when deprived of a return of tide he dies. As vessels often remain in dock for days together, the Limnoriae of necessity cannot live, and consequently the wood- work, even in the oldest stone docks (the original wooden keei blocks) never shows signs of having been affected by sea worms. While entertaining a high opinion of the value of timber docks, in suitable localities, and under circumstances favourable to their construction and maintenance, I cannot wholly concur in the conclusions at which the United States Board of Inspectors arrived. They seem to me to be based upon insufficient data, and the fact that the wood work of No. 2 Dock at Boston had to be entirely renewed after twenty years' service appears to have required more notice and searching investigation than it received, at least so fur as can be gleaned from the report. One of the chief advantages of a well-constructed timber dock is said to be that the inteiior is left perfectly dry after the water has been pumped out, and, as was before stated, a ship often remains in dock for many days, it follows that the face is left alternately wet and dry, and there is no condition which haptens more speedily the decay of wood than this. Our cheapest native timbers are hemlock and spruce, and each should be chemically treated to make it serviceable for the facu of a wooden dock. Any process adopted to preserve these timbers from decf.y will be found expensive, and the result would 20 probably be unsatisfactory, as they naturally split and crack badly when subjected to the action of the weather, and are therefore unsuitable for use in exposed positions. Onr ordinary white pine is an expensive wood and is yearly becomintj more scarce and valuable. It is uood and suitable for use in dry situations, but is objectionable in large dimensions by reason of its liability to dry rot, and it rapidly decays when subjected to the action of moisture or alternately wet and dry. The only available timber which is suitable for the construc- tion of a wooden dock is Southern, Georgia, or pitch pine. When of good quality it is heavy, close grained, elastic and durable, and when the sap wood is removed it will remain sound for a long time in damp localities. It is however, in this country, very expensive, being worth about fifty cents per cubic foot, in a rough state, delivered at Halifax. To arrive at its value fixed in place, in a finished work, it would not be safe to estimate less than seventy cents per foot, or say SlO per cubic yard. As this is a higher price than is usually paid for granite masonry in this city, it is clear that the saving effected by the adoption of pitch pine in the face of a dock would not be as great as may be generally supposed. That there would be a saving is undoubted, even though the wood should cost much more per cubic yard than stone, because the quantity of the former material required is much less than the latter, as the stones have necessarily to be well bonded with the backing, while the wood forms simply a lining. The great saving effected by the adoption of a timber dock (as constructed in the United States) is by reason of the absence of all backing in the structure, clay puddle being substituted and rammed in solidly against the wooden altars as they are placed in position, and built upwards. In the best timber docks concrete has been liberally used at and about the entrance, so that the portions of the work exposed to the action of ship worms are well protected, and only a veneering of wood work in those places will require renewing. I think it would be a mistake to adopt a structure of this description in this port, and if it should ultimately be decided to adhere to wood for the face of the dock, it would be advisable to build a heavy backing of the best Portland cement concrete and to bed the timbers upon this material, in other words, it would be an artificial stone dock with a wooden face. For the purpose of enquiring into the cost of maintenance of such a structure, it may be assumed that the heart of the work would be indestructible and permanent, while the wooden portions, which would be mostly exposed, would require periodical repairs and rt&newing. 21 and crack r, and are i is yearly ui table for lensions by cays when and dry. e construc- ne. When id durable, ionnd for a is country, c foot, in a lue fixed in itimate less d. As this nry in this on of pitch as may be undoubted, cubic yard lal required iarily to be IS simply a imber dock :,he absence tituted and are placed sks concrete 50 that the worms are those places ture of this 3 decided to idvisable to on Crete and [Is, it would ntenance of )f the work ,he wooden ild require Although the wood woik in timber docks elsewhere is said to have been in use ever since their original construction — covering a period, in one case, of twenty-nine years — I do not think it would be safe in this climate to assume that the timber would endure, under the most favorable circumstances, for a greater length of time than twenty years without having to undergo very extensive repairs in that period. The dry dock required at this port will be one of the largest in America, and if we assume that it can be built for a certain sum of money, and can arrive at an approximate amount for repairs and renewal of the perishable parts in a given period of time, it is not a difficult matter to determine the relative merits financially of such a structure as compared with another which would cost more in the first instance and less for repairs after- wards. As it is impossible to make any reliable estimate of the first cost of a dock until the site is known and, at least, approximate data as to details be given, it becomes necessary for the purposes of comparison — to assume a probable cost for the construction cf one description of dock or the other. If $500,000 be taken as the first cost of a .stone dock, and an allowance of $10,000 be made for repairs required in every 20 years, the relative value of a dock which would never need any repairs would be $500,050, because the difierence would yield at compound interest, (assuming money to be worth five per cent,) the sum nece-isary to cover the cost of repairs in that time. The relative value of a timber dock may also be arrived at in the same way. If a similar sum of money be allowed for the general repairs to the wood work of a timber dock, and $50,000 be taken as the cost of entirely renewing the wooden face every 20 3'ears, then — for the reason given above — the equivalent value of the timber dock, with concrete backing, would be $4G9,750, and of a dock requiring to be wholly rebuilt every 20 years, $315,30.'J. Working upon the same data as to cost of repairs and renewals, durability and the value of money, but assuming other values for the cost of a stone dock, the figures would stand thus : Equivalent value of Equivalent value concrete dock with Equivalent value of Assumed cost of a of stone or con- pitch pine face. a wooden dock atone dock that crete dock requir- requiring $60,000 requiring entire would never need ing $10,000 in in repairs and re- rebuilding every 20 any repairs. repairs ever; 20 newals ev9iy 20 years. years. years. $ 500.000 $ 493.950 1 463.700 $ 311,534 600.000 593,9.50 5«3.700 373.841 800,000 793,950 763.700 498,454 1,000,000 993,950 963,700 623.068 2,000,000 1,993,950 1,963,700 1,246,136 22 These figures will stand about the same if the wood work of the timber docks be assumed to last for 25 years without renewing, and money be taken as worth four per cent. The relative values here given are not mathematically correct, because the repairs account would be a running one and not p.ayable in a lump sum every 20 or 25 years. The results, however, are sufficiently near the mark to enable a fair con- clusion to be arrived at, and, ])ractically, they may be taken as accurate, because the errois in each case would about balance. The cost of a dry dock must necessarily depend to a great extent upon the locality selected for its construction. If the site be one where there is difficulty in obtaining a solid foundation, or where the water cannot easily be excluded during construc- tion, the first outlay will probably be heavy, no matter what kind of dock may be adopted. The primary cause of the great cost of some of the American stone docks has been that the foundations were bad, or much difficulty was experienced in getting rid of the water and in keeping the coffer-dams tight. Troubles of a similar nature have been experienced at the entrance to the Quebec dock, and have entailed additional expenditures, already, of over $100,000. besides causing great delay in the con)pletion of the dock. The cheapest site upon which a graving dock could be built, would be one where the excavations were through some water- tight material, and well clear of the water's-edge, so that no expensive coffer-dams would be required. The channel leading to the entrance could then be excavated and dredjjed out after the whole structure had been completed on dry land. We cannot hope, however, in this port, to obtain so favorable a site, especially in a locality' Avhich would answer in other respects, and it may be taken for granted that the items "coffer-dams" and " pumping " will form no inconsiderable part of the first cost of ojir dock, unless, indeed, the result of surveys and careful borings should show the ground to be more favorable than the surface would indicate. As to the relative cost of the different materials which may be employed in the construction of a dry dock, the following prices may be taken as a guide : — Pitch-pine built in place.. $19 00 per cubic yard. 1st class granite masonr}'.. 17 00 n m Brickwork in cement 11 00 n » Best rubble backing 5 00 m i; Portland cement concrete . . 4 50 m m Pitch-pine undoubtedly possesses advantages over any of the other materials for the internal face and altars of a dry dock. Its chief merits seems to be that it may be expected to last longer and in a more perfect state than other kinds of wood in 30cl work of ars without t. hematically incr one and The results, a fair con- be taken as i balance. (1 to a great If the site foundation, ng construc- natter what of the great jen that the )eriencetl in -dams tight, iced at the additional lusing great lid be built, jome water- so that no mel leading d out after land. We able a site, ler respects, offer-dams " of the first and careful le than the which mav e following y&Yd. : any of the a dry dock, cted to last of wood in 28 the same situation, that it does not absorb cold in winter nor heat in summer to the same extent that stone, brickwork or concrete would do, and consequently, it is more ;;omfortablo and healthy for the workmen than either of those materials. Also, that it is much easier to keep the dock clear of accumulations of ice and snow when the altars are of wood than if of any other substance. Its disadvantages are that it is a foreign and expen- sive wood, and that its durability cannot be assured. The conclusions at which I have arrived, after giving these matters careful consideration are, that a well-constructed dock, built with concrete backing and a granite face, would be the best in this port. That a concrete dock with pitch-pine facing would stand next as regards cost and would prove an excellent and serviceable structure for a number of years. That a dock built almost entirely of concrete would be a good and durable struc- ture, and that it would be considerably cheaper than the dock faced with pitch-pine. Finally, that a dock faced with timber and backed only with clay puddle — in the usual way that wooden docks have thus far been built — while being probably the cheapest, would not prove satisfactory for any length of time in this country. There are several other descriptions of docks and appliances which have been invented in order to enable workmen to obtain easy access to the bottoms of vessels for the purposes of exam- ination or repairs. Of these the best known in this port is probably the Marine Slip or Railway, of which we have three, the largest bemg capable of drawing a ship of 2,500 tons out of the water. The principal other kinds of doclcs are : 1. The Balance or Floating Dock. — This is a huge wooden construction, into which the vessel is towed or hauled. The water-tight compartments are then pumped out and the dock, with the ship upon it, gradually rises out of the water. The great drawback to this dock here would be that the bottom would soon be destroyed by worms and it would be inaccessible for repairs. 2. The Sectional Dock. — This may be compared to a Balance dock, cut transversely into separate pieces or section*^ of about 30 feet in length. The sections are made of timber, and as many are placed together as may be needed to raise a ship of any length. There are connecting beams joining the several sections together, w^hich are keyed up after the vessel has been lifted, so that the different parts become as one structure. Vessels can be transferred from the dock to ways upon the shore by means of a cradle worked by hydraulic power, but the operation is said to be one requiring great care and has not untrequently resulted in accidents of a serious nature. 24 3. Iron Floating Docks are of various shape and design, probably one of the largest in existence is that at Bermuda, which 18 330 feet in length by 84 feet in width inside. The bottom is flat and the sides curved, so that the outline roughly assumes the shape of a vessel amidships, and the ends are open. It is divided lengthwise into eight water-tight compartments and transversely into three on each side. It is provided with two caissons and can take in vessels drawing water up to 2G feet. Its cost is said to have been about SI ,200,000. One of the objections to a dock of this description seems to be that the ditticulty of reaching the bottom for the purpose of cleaning or repairs is great and expensive, besides l:)eing attended with no small risk to the entire structure. An iron floating dock 300 feet in length by 72 feet in width inside was constructed in 18G6 at St. Thomas. It was composed of six pontoons, each of which was divided into three water- tight compartments. The sides were formed of girders resting upon the pontoons and between the girders were placed large floats, the object being to counteract any tendency in the struc- ture to cant and to prevent it from sinking too far. Soon after its completion, however, an accident occurred and the whole dock sank to the bottom, where it remained for a considerable time. 4. Dej^oaiting Docks. — The first dock of this description is said to have been constructed at the Arsenal of Nicolaiefl, in the Black Sea, for the Russian Government in 1877. It was designed for the purpose of raising the large circular iron-clads and the ordinary iron-clads of the Russian navy, and will lift a dead weight of about 4,000 tons. It has but one side, which is 280 feet long, 44 J feet high, and 12 feet broad, and is divided into three similar lengths, which can be attached or detached at pleasure. To each is fastened a series of pontoons or " fingers " on one side, which are passed beneath the vessel to be laised. On the other side is a sliding out-rigger which balances the dock and prevents it from tipping over. A ship is raised by pumping the water out of the pontoons, and when at a sufficient height the dock, with the ship upon it, is diawn sidewise to a staging along the shore. The staging is built of piles arranged in parallel rows in such a manner that the pontoons suppoiting the ship pass between the rows just as the fingers of one hand, if extended a little, may be made to fit between the fingers of the other. When the pontoons are in this position they are allowed to fill with water, partially sink, and be withdrawn so as to be ready for use again, the ship, of course, being left standing upon the stage. In this way any number of vessels can be deposited high and dry out of water with the one dock the limit being simply the length of the staging. .... 25 , design, a, which attorn is assumes n. It is nts and ath two I 2G feet. ) of the tliat the ining or with no n width ornposed 3 water- 3 resting :ed large le struc- )on after jole dock e time. iption is ft, in the designed and the t a dead h is 280 ded into ached at ■ fingers " )e laised. the dock pumping it height I staging II parallel the ship extended he other, ed to fill he ready upon the iited high g simply This dock is said to have cost between £100,000 and £200,00(> sterling — as first built — but in 1880 its capacity was enlarged so that it can now lift up to G,000 tons. The Russian Government have recently completed another dock of the same description to raise vessels up to about 8,000 tons displacement. The chief olrjectionable features of this dock, and in fact of all floating docks consisting of several sections or pontoons are said to be — 1st. Difficulty in properly supporting a vessel on the dock. 2nd. The practical impossibility of so emptying the different pontoons or sections that great strain will not be brought upon the vessel. 5. The Hydraidic Lift Dock. — This dock is constructed with two rows of hydraulic presses and rams, which serve to raise the vessel; between these are suspended "a number of transverse girders forming a gridiron, which supports a pontoon upon which the vessel when raised, is ultimately floated." The dock is said to be adapted to localities where the rise and fall of tide are small. 6. " The Hydraulic Ovid" bears much resemblance to the last-mentioned dock. The vessel is raised by hydraulic presses and rams, but the presses are placed directly beneath the vessel to be raised, and thus the cross girders, the pontoon and other portions of the former dock are dispensed with in this case. The weight of the apparatus to be lifted and the cost of the dock are thus greatl}' reduced. It is claimed that " in favorable positions "hydraulic grids may be constructed at a cost of £5 per ton of "dead weight to be docked, while as compared with patent slips, " they have the advantage of occupying very little space, and " of raising vessels on an even keel without the slightest strain." 7. The Double Power Dock. — This is an iron floating dock with flat bottom and upright sides. The sides, corners and bottom are in separate pieces or pontoons, and can either slide one within the other or be made rigid. The upper portions of the sides are converted into machine and workshops. The great advantage which this dock possesses over all other descriptions of floating docks is that all tlie portions below water can readily be got at, as one part of the structure can be made to dock any other part. In this way it can always be kept well cleaned and painted, so that its length of life would be greatly prolonged. It is claimed that with care it will last a hundred years. The objections to a floating dock, even of the best description, seem to me to be that the items, cleaning, painting and maintenance must necessarily amount to a large sum annually, besides which there is always the risk of an accident occui-ring by which the whole structure might be suddenly precipitated to the bottom. A dock of the above description (the double power dock) to lift a ship of 4,000 tons dead weight, I am assured by the agent for the patentees, could be placed in Halifax Harbour complete in every respect (duty paid) within eighteen months after the 3 26 order foi it is given, at a cost of SoOO.OOO. The cost of a larger dock of the same kiml has not been given. 8. Flooimg Coffer DamH. — These may be compared to a miniature timber floating dock, or a box with three sides and a bottom, the fourth side being cut out roughly to the shape of a ship. This dock is generally taken to the ship, and not the ship to the dock, as in other cases. The dock or cotter dam, being submerged, is placed under the bow or stern of a vessel, her section having been previously ascertained, and the open side of the box mad(; to cori'espond to the same with water-tight packing. The water is tlien pumped out, and the workmen can at once descend to the bottom of the vessel. These cotter dams, although no doubt useful and serviceable in many cases, admit of access being had only to the bow or stern of a vessel ; they can therefori never entirely supercede the dry dock. There are many important details in connection with permanent docks, both of wood or stone, to which no reference is here made on account of the length that this report has already reached. There is, however, one matter which seems to me of such importance that attention may not now improperl}' be directed to it, in order to show that the number of ocean-going steamships which enter this port is considerably greater than those which enter some other ports where large graving docks have been found necessary. An opportunity will thus be afforded to those who care to enter upon the calculation, to estimate the probable paying qualities of the proposed dock. They should however, bear in mind that Halifax lies close upon the track of vessels trading between Great Britain and the northern ports of the United States, and consequently it is to be expected that many an " Ocean Tramp "* and other vessels disabled in mid-ocean will make for this port for repairs if proper facilities could be ottered. Ocean going steamships are here specially referred to because it is vessels of that class to which the owners of a large graving dock must look for their greatest amount of business and profits. In the year 1881 there entered the port of Halifax 584 steam- ships, ships and barques, having a registered tonnage of 564,117 tons. Of these, 494 were steamers of 514,688 registered tons. The total number of ocean steam vessels which entered all the ports of the United States in the same year was 4,222, and their total tonnage was 8,727,688. If the returns from the port of New York be deducted, the result shows as follows : Total number of ocean steamers entered inwards at all other ports in the United States 2,308 Total tonnage of ditto 3,888,557 * A name given in America to iron iteamshipa cheaply built and of inferior quality. 27 The.se figures refur only to the Htcam vessels engaged in the foreign trade of the country, and compared with similar returns from the ports of Halifax, Baltimore and Quebec, they stand thus for the year 1881 : STEAMSHirS ENGAGED IN FOllEIGN TRADE Entered inwards at Halifax . .302. II II Baltimore 311. II 11 Quebec . .157. Tonnage, 459,278 202,297 Correct returns from other ports have not yet been received, but will be added in an appendix, together with more full returns from the above ports, if they can be obtained. From the above it will be seen that the number of ocean steamships entering the Harbour of Halifax is nearly twenty per cent, more than at the port of Baltimore, and exceeds the entries at Quebec HarViour by over one hundred and thirty per cent. When it is also considered that the St, Lawrence is scaled up by ice for five months out of the year ; that this is the natural Winter Port of the Dominion, and Hei ^Majesty's chief Naval Station in North America, besides being . Vtlantic terminus of our great inter-provincial system of railw i ^, and, in a military point of view, the key to Canada, I do think that much stronger arguments need be urged to impress upon both the Imperial and Dominion authorities our claims to substantial aid in so importtint an enterprise as the Halifax Graving Dock. Your obedient servant, E. H. KEATING. Errata.— Page 19, line 14 fiom bottom,— for No. 2 read No. 3. 28 a Oi .'S'.QO S-. ^ 2- '^ ja '^^'^ ^ ■>! •S: « "? '^ ^5$ rfS 5: 'fi g <** 2> S *" •«* « -. a ^^ ^ tonnage of , durmg t 1 s -^-s ^ s^ - c ^S '« "Sj o •s i; 13 SI 75 8 S2 ^^ 1 g •^ i : • 1 i 247 00 I-t C3 11 ■ g S3 i g S H ^ a D Q 1 2 'sassnp ^ oc • ; : ;!5 o rH joo^mox CO c^ r- rH Bjaaooqag i "^ ^ •B»ni')U38i.ia ^ r- • § puB sSug (M •BanbjBa S J • Cm •sdiqs «C Si : V. ■»t m or ■««< 2 „• oc 1 : s (M aJ s ^ oc ce oc S 00 1 22 , (?^1 >o c o- c^ i-i >rf CO Co 1:^ o c< b- OS t^ ^ OC i-< IlWJOSpSSSA I-l 00 CO I- 3 '^ s s? cs i o o |0"ONmo,I CO •s-iauooqag rH T-l : : s i puB sSug 1 8 iH J ^ : •sanTjJBa 1 OQ § Q > •Bdiqg • : oc CO M Se ; Tf : • OO ^ or OO t- ^ o> ti » Si oo l-H CO te s s# rH o: < 1 c 1 s 2 c J •4- "3, c 1 P4 (!■ -3 1 s 1 m a : ^ 1 r > t ^ ^1 (M 5^ s? wa li Oi 3*^ !i5 cl 3-2 la u-e 15 •^5 « - it , «ij tJ •C« 5 l2 t3 ■* ■2.2 S >iJ IS ctT s ^M i-i * ; ^k fe » (M g S o i« :? O § 3 s lO oS ii (M fci O o j^^%- -^ 3: a « W 1 ■!= if 9 i^li o 3S « »:J= i^ x; 3 a.3 ^1 g-So •2 « -i "o ?» o ■" •« ji o, 3 a o « 5 OO c 139 1 b- i:^.2 -g ) «^ ■flo J8 § S| S § •a E S To OO |§5 2 J ■*- o .^ ;= S u « Ji StoO' : 'd c '-■S S; : « 1^1 ■ -a 1 ^ =«K r 1. 3 -» a^