}0^. ^%\> ^.v<b^

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

wJo

f/j

1.0

I.I

"'" IIIIM lilM
" IM iiiii^

,40

12.0

1.8

1.25

1.4

1.6

^ 6" —

►

//,

^f -*

(PI

///,

Photographic

Sciences
Corporation

23 WEST MAINS7aEET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580

(716) 872-4503

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHM/ICMH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductlons historiques

1980

Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques

The Institute has attempted to obtain the best
original copy available for filming. Features of this
copy which may be bibliographically unique,
which may alter any of the images in the
reproduction, or which may significantly change
the usual method of filming, are checked below.

L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire
qu'il lui a 6x6 possible de se procurer. Les details
de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du
point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier
une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage
sont indiquds ci-dessous.

Coloured covers/
Couverture de c>/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

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.

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

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

) pelure,

on d

32X

^TV^

^.tC

DEY DOCKS.

f^tcy/^

REPORTS

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.

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.

Wi<lth at coping level 1JJ5 n

Width at bottom 50 n

Depth from coping to bottom 32 it

Draught of water from keel blocks to

highest tide level 2G n

The proposal includes the erection of suitable buildings for
Engine House, Repair Shops, &c. They stipulate that the site
must be acceptable to them, and ask the sum of .^800,000 for the
dock and works complete, providing the cost of the site will not
exceed $25 000. j"ie otter is based upon the condition that the
company shall receive in subsidies $10,000 per annum f'-om the
Imperial Government, and a like sum from the Dominion and
City Governments, or in all $30,000 per annum for a period of
20 years.

3. The proposal of Messrs. Kinipple &; Morris, M. M. Inst.
C. E., is to form a company with a capital of $1,000,000, to build
a .stone dock oGO ft. in length, 100 ft. wide at coping level, with
2G feet depth of water over cill of entrance at ordinary high
water, spring tides, 24 feet G inches depth at head, and the
entrance to be 78 feet in width.

The company reserve the right to select any site for the works
within the limits of the City, and the proposal is made " subject
to tho approval of certain capitalists in England," and upon the
condition that the subsidies from both the Dominion Government
and the City be increased from .$10,000 per annum each for
20 years to $13,750 each for 22 years after the completion of the
dock, and also that the subsidies shall be paid pro rata from the
time that the company .shall have expended $50,000 until
completion, the term of four years being allowed for construction.

There are 21 stipulations in the proposal, to which, for the
.sake of brevity, I must refer to the document itself.

4. The Recorder's letter has reference to the proposal of
Messrs. Kinipple & Morris only. It calls attention to the
impracticability of paying the subsidies as stipulated ; to there
being no provision to ensure the construction of the dock

rat(Ml
, and
L Y.,
3 as a
Toabl»»
psoii's

one of

ings for
the sit«^
for the
will not
that the
Vom the
lion and
jeriod of

M. Inst.

to build

l\a'l, with

ary high

and the

reworks
" subject
upon the
vernmont

each for
on of the

from the
)()0 until
struction.

h, for the

roposal of
)n to the
; to there
the dock

accordiniT to the term<} of the proposal ; to the nature of the
materials to be usorl and the class of the dock not beinjjr stated
in terms which he considers sufficiently definite; to the absence
of any provision as to keeping the dock in proper repair ; to the
question of taxation ; to the fact that no date is fixed for the
commencement of the work ; and to the advisability of inserting
a clause specifying the time dju'ing which the agreement shall
be binding.

5. The Report of the " Dry Dock Committee " makes no
recommendation. It deals solely with the proposal of Messrs.
Kinipple & Morris, and the Committee submit the scheme to the
consideration of the Council. The Report of the " Joint
(Committee " is of the same nature.

6. Mr. Morris' letter of loth August calls attention to the
necessity of an early decision on the part of the City Council, so
that the necessary plans and specifications may be prepared
during the coming winter, and the works commenced early next
spring.

7. The outline plan of the dock submitted b}- Messrs.
Kinipple &; Morris, is a smaH scale drawing or sketch, on tracing
linen, illustrating a stone dock substantially in accordance with
their w'ritten proposal.

I presume, judging from the short time that has been given
me to report upon the above papers, that I am not expected to
enter upon the (piostions of " subsidy " and the financial aspects
of the two proposed schemes.

The offer of J. &: E. Simpson & Co. is in m}' opinion, too
vague to be dealt with in its present shape. There are many
points of importance to the City to which no allusion has been
made, the length, width and depth of the dock being the only
things definitely stated. Provision is made that plans will here-
after be submitted but there is no stipulation that they shall be
subject to the approval of the Council, and the kind of materials
to be ustl in construction is not stated. Messrs. Simpson have
also submitted a series of photographs of their docks in New
York and Philadelphia, which give a good general idea of the
nature and character of those works. The sides, which incline
at an angle of about 4.5 degrees, are composed of a series of
wooden steps or altars, which in some ca.ses extend from the
wooden floor up to the surface, in others the wood is discontinued
at tide level, and the altars are continued upwards in concrete to
the coping, which is also of concrete. The entrances are closed
with ordinary ship caissons of wrought iron, which are floated in
and out of position, and are operated by manual labour, capstans
being placed near the entrance to the dock to facilitate the work.
The advantages claimed for Simpson's docks, over those having

MideH less inclinod, arc said to be that men can enter or leave at any
point ; that the facilities for shoring a ship are better than in
any other description of dock, and conse(juently that the expense
of operatinj^ the dock is greatly reduced ; that materials can be
deposited in or taken out of the structure readily at any point,
and that by having the sides sloping, a full flood of light and air
is admitted to the bottom of the ship while in dock.

The proposal of Messrs. Kinipple & Monis is much more full
than that of Messrs. Sinipson, and the sketch plan subnntted
enables a good estinmte to be formed of the cha'acter of the
dock which they piopose. The scheme has been so thoroughly
discussed before the (yommittees to whom it was referred, as well
as before the City Conncil an<l a public meeting called specially
for its consideration, that I feel it would be superfluous for me
to attempt to ventilate it more fully than has already been done.

As regards the proposed plan of the dock, the entrance is
made wider than is usual, in order to accommodate the largest class
of war vessel, and the bottom of the dock is shown to be cSO feet
in width. The walls, I undeistand, are intended to be built of
either rubble masonry or concrete, faced with native granite ;
the entrance to l)e closed by a wrought iron sliding caisson,
which can be drawn into a recess or chamber at one side, built
for its reception.

The means provided for gaining access to the dock are two
stairways at the .si'M-n, one on each side at about 100 feet from
the entrance, and two at the head of the dock. Timber slides
(of which there are four in all) are placed alongside of the stair-
ways at the sides and head of the dock. It appears to me that
the structure would be a more convenient one for the purposes
for which it is intended, if additional means of ingress and egress
and more timber slides were provided, say at least three staii'ways
with timber slides on each side of the dock, instead of one
as proposed. This would add a little to the cost of the work,
and the company may consider it a matter purely for their own
consideration, but in an undertaking intended for the benefit of
the poit, the City may fairly claim that it should be made as
convenient as possible. The plans do not show what the thick-
ness of the walls is intended to be ; this is a most important
point in a climate such as this, which is subject to great and
sudden changes, and where the frost acts so disastrously upon
ordinary retaining walls, where proper precautions have not
been taken to guard against its effects. I have no doubt,
however, that the matter will be properly dealt with by the
eminent engineers wfio are the chief movers in this proposal.
If the excavations should be in rock, walls of a much less
thickness will answer than if in ordinary soil, and as no site has
yet been selected, it is impossible at present to determine

t any
(in in
pense
an be
point,
nil air

re full
initt(Ml
of the
^ugbly
as well
ecially
for me
n (lone.

ance is
Ht class
HO feet
juilt of
rranite ;
caisson,
le, built

are two
iet from
er slides
he stair-
iiie that
purposes
nd egress
stairways
,d of one
the work:
,hfcir own
benefit of

made as
,be thick -
important
great and
»usly upon
have not
no doubt,
^th by the
s proposal,
niuch less
no site has

determine

•definitely what thicknoss should be adopted. Attention ifl,
however, called to the question to show the importance of
stipulating that the dock shall always be kept in repair an<l
working order.

One of the matters of which T think, the Council should Ikj
informed is, that in the proposal of Messrs. Kiriipple &; Morris
the subsidies may extend over a period of twenty-six years
instead of twenty-five years, as is now supposed. Another is,
that if the proposal is to be adopted, the company should be
induced, if possible, to undertake the completion of the works in
less than four years.

The only way to ensure having the dock built and completed
in a satisfactory manner is to make it conditional that the plans
and specifications shall be subject to the approval of the City
Council.

As the inducement in oftering a large subsidy is that the
dock will increase the trade and prosperity of the port, it does
not seem unreasonable that the City should have a voice in
determining the charges for docking vessels, as it is clear the
lower these are made the more vessels are likely to come to the
port for the purpose of repaire. The dock charges in New
York are said to be 20 cents per ton on the vessels registered
tonnage for the first day, and from 15 cents to 18 cents per ton
for each succeeding day ; a ship of 5,000 tons would therefore
pay $1,000 for the first day and from $750 to S900 for each day
it remained in dock afterwards. These charges seem to be
enormous, and if the Halifax dock is to enter into successful
competition with others, the rates should be made sufficiently
low to draw ships a little out of their tvay to this port for the
sake of the saving which would be effected.

In order that much time be not lost in docking a vessel, there
are many matters of detail which need careful consideration in
designing the structure and its necessary appliances. Whether
the caisson should be a floating or sliding one, is a question of
some importance, the former being the cheapest in first cost,
while the latter is a less expensive one to operate. There are
advantages and disadvantages peculiar to each which can only
be properly understood by inspection and a minute enquiry into
the merits of both.

The dock, when full of water, will contain approximately
from 7,000,000 to 8,000,000 gallons, and in order to empty this
enormous quantity of water rapidly, very heavy pumping
machinery is necessary. The Messrs. Simpson use centrifugal
pumps, which I believe to be the best and most effective for
dock purposes, and also very much cheaper than any other style.
Messrs. Kinipple & Morris, although it is not stated in their
proposal, I believe, intend to adopt plunger pumps, as they have

(lone elsewhere. In any scheme that may be adopted, it should
be clearly understood before hand what length of time will be
required to pump out the dock when full to high water spring
tides.

As the proposed dock will be an exceptionally long one, it
sreems to me that it would be a good plan to build one or two or
more stops in the interior, so that the caisson could readily be
shifted up nearer to the head for the accommodation of small
ships, and so as to avoid a large amount of pumping which would
otherwise be necessary.

It has been proposed that a delegation should be sent to
examine some of the existing dry docks in ports along the
Atlantic coast, and to report upon w^hat plan they would
recommend. I have no doubt that a great deal of practical and
useful information may be obtained by the adoption of this
suggestion.

There arc two principle things which tend to make the con-
struction of dry docks expensive, and these are, difficulties in
obtaining a good, solid, and even foundation, and in keeping out
the water during the construction of the lower parts of the
works. It is not likely that there will be much trouble in
obtaining a good foundation anywhere within the City limits,
but there may be great difficulty in dealing with the water.

A comparison of the cost of a number of gi'aving docks in
England and America, shows that it varies from about S5.00 to
$24.00 per cubic yard of the sectional accommodation. (The
great depth and the difficulties of dealing with the water and
the foundations of some docks, as compared with others, must
naturally affect this comparison largely.) The proposed dock
for this port may be assumed to have a sectional capacity of about
"iCOOO cubic yards which, at the lower estimate of $5.00, would
make the probable cost $250,000 ; at the higher estimate the cost
would be $1,200,000.

Before any reliable or tolerably close estimate of the probable
cost can< be made, it will be necessary to have the site selected,
careful and accurate soundings and borings taken and the plan
and principal details definitely settled.

I would add that it mijiht be well to consider if the interests
of the City should not be guarded in some way in the event of
the dock falling into decay or disuse after the expiration of the
time, limited for the payment or the subsidies.

Respectfully submitted.

E. H. KEATING,

City Engineer.

sliould

will be

spring

one, it

•

two or

dily be

f small

would

i. 4.^

the
would
cal and
of this

he con-
Ities in
>ing 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

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.

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

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

]

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

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<l
Watchman, extra hands being hired temporily when needed.

No. 1 Dock, which is the largest, can accommodate a ship up
to about 350 feet in length over all on deck. No. 2 is the next in
size and No. 3 is the smallest. The dimensions of all will found
in table A.

All three have been built much upon the same plan, or in the
same manner as that described for No. 1 Dock at Portland,
except that they were constructed partly inland. The altars
which form the sides slope at an angle of about 45 degrees and
rest upon the braces which again are secured to the tops of the
piles. The bottom is silt and clay, and spruce pile foundations
have been used throughout. The backing in these as well as in
all the other timber docks along the Atlantic coast, is stiff clay
puddle of a few feet in thickness.

All the three entrances are closed by wooden swinging gates
(operated by chains and capstans,) which will soon require
extensive repairs.

No. 1 Dock was completed in June, 18G4. The altars are of
ordinary white pine and spruce, and the floor is hardwood.
Little money has been spent upon this structure since its com-
pletion, repairs having been confined almost solely to the altars
above tide level. The woodwork below tide is still in good
condition.

No. 2 Dock was finished in November, 1854. The braces,
floor and altars are all of spruce. It is stated that but slight
repairs to this dock have ever been made, and that these were
chiefly to the altars and braces above tide level and the wooden

were
reater
saved

it East
npany;
ive no
■ docks,
bh, not
nd the
month,
lay five
cretary
r about
rigency.
of five
m and
led.

ship up
next in
11 found

in the

tland,

altars

ees and

of the

lations

1 as in

ti' clay

gates
require

are of
Iwood.

ts com-
altars

in good

braces,
t slight
ise were
wooden

coping. The dock is still in working order, but some ropuira
seem to be needed. As far as outward appearances go, I would
judge that about $G,000 would cover the cost of repairs, assuming
labour and materials to be at average Halifax prices. It is,
however, possible that the braces and heads of the piles may on
examination be found to be so decayed as to more than double
this estimate. It would be impossible for the most experienced
expert to make any close estimate of the probable cost of work
of this nature unless portions of the face timbers were removed,
so that a thorough examination could be had of the interior.

No. 3. Dock was completed in July, 1855. I do not know
what kind of wood was originally used for the internal face
work, but probably it was ordinary spruce, as the whole had to
be renewed in 1875. The new altars are mostly of white pine,
and the dock is now in good condition.

Why the entire face of this dock should have required
renewing after the lapse of 20 j'ears, while such has not been
needed in No. 2 dock, which is a year older, does not appear at
all clear — however — the statements are given as they were
received from those who profess to know the history of the
works.

THE DRY DOCK AT BROOKLYN NAVY-YARD, NEW YORK.

This dock was commenced in 1844, and finished in August.
1851, at a total cost of ^2,151,173.01. From this sum, however,
must be deducted $147,675 for tools anc] machinery, &c., sold
after completion of the work, and for buildings erected and used
for other than dock purposes.

The entrance is c' sed by iron swinging gates, and an iron
floating caisson, upon which about $21,000 have recently been
spent in repairs. From 1871 to 1881 the repairs to the dock
cost $14,037, and I cannot find that any other sums have been
expended on this item.

The walls are of very heavy masonry, the face and altars
being neatly worked granite, and the backing composed of blocks
of granite.

By examing table C. it will be seen that the prices paid for
nearly every item in the work were excessive in the extreme.
This coupled with the fact that great difficulty was experienced
in preparing for and getting in the foundations, owing to the
treacherous nature of the bottom, is sufficient to account for the
enormous cost of the works.

The masonry of this dock has always given trouble ; it leaks

badly in many places, and several of the stones have been so

heaved by the frost that the joints have opened from about f ths

of an inch to an inch in width. The attempt has been made,

both here and at the Boston Htone dock, to caulk the open joints
with lead, the effect of which, in my opinion, has been to make
niatterH worse, as the water, instead of having a free outlet, woh
held in the masonry, and between the face stones and the back-
ing. Of course, when the frost came, the inevitable result would
be that the face stones would be pushed further out than before.

It is estimated that about $G0,()0() are required to repair the
masonry, but it would appear to mo j)referable to spend a larger
amount and, if possible remove the water from behind the walls
which is apparently the cause of all the trouble.

On examining the plans of this and the other American stone
dry docks, I could not find that any provision had been made
for arterial or underdrainage, and this is sufHcient to account —
in a great measure — for the leakage and subsequent troubles
which have been experienced. Another matter to be borne in
mind in connection with these docks is that they were eon-
."tructed before the invaluable properties of Portland cement —
for works of this nature — had become known to engineers.

THE cramp's dry DOCKS, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK.

These docks lie beside each other in Erie Basin, and are
pumped out by the same pumps and engines. They are two in
number and are known as No. 1 and No. 2 dock. Each is a
wooden structure built by J. E. Simpson & Co , and finished in
186G. The bottom was tough clay and stones, and the piles
which support the structures were driven into it from 15 to 22
feet below floor level. It having been found that these docks
were not large enough, No. 1 was lengthened 30 and deepened
3 feet, and No. 2 was lengthened 110 and deepened 4 feet. The
original cost, including repairs, is given as $783,356, and the
alterations are said to have cost $500,000.

The peculiarity of these docks is that the coping and the five
.short altars at the top are in monolithic concrete, otherwise the
construction is the same as the wooden docks elsewhere. The
timber in No. 1 Dock is said to be of different kinds of wood,
and in No. 2 to be all of Southern or Georgia pine. The
entrances are closed by wrought-iron floating caissons, the pumps
in which are worked by steam carried underground from the main
boiler house. Either caisson, it is said, can be easily handled by
three men in any weather, and eight men in all are needed to
dock the largest ship that can enter either structure. These
docks are the largest in America, they were leased by " The
William Cramp & Son's, Ship and Engine Building Co." of New
York and Philadelphia, a few years ago. The heads of the firm
not only give them the highest praise but contemplate shortly
building another dock of the same description.

n joints
bo make
,let, woH
le back-
It would
1 before.

pair the
a larjrer
he walls

:an stone
sn made
jcoiint —
troubles
borne in
ere con-
;ement —
jrs.

and are
e two in
Each is a
nished in
the \n\e»
15 to 22
!se docks
deepened
leet. The
and the

[] the five
rwise the
;re. The
i of wood,
ine. The
10 pumps
the main
an died by
needed to
e. These
by "The
" of New
: the firm
te shortly

There can be no question that these docks possess groat merits.
There is plenty of light and air in them, and they soon dry after
being pumped out, as — from their tlaiing sides — the sun can
shine directly into thetn from almost an}* quarter. Another and
a very important advantage is, that by tne adoption of short
and narrow altars it is never necessary to cut the shores which
hold a ship in position — as must be done in a dock with nearly
vertical sides or of the ordinary .shape — because, if a shore is found
to be too long or too short when placed on any altar, it has only to
be raised or lowed to another, which is the work of a moment.
This at first sight seems trivial, but if a dock has much business
to do and the shores have to be constantly cut to fit ships of
different traverse section, the anion nt of timber consumed and
the waste of time would form no inconsiderable item in the
working expen.ses. The short and narrow altars also convert
each side of the dock into a broad staircase, the width of which
w nearly the length of the dock. The advantage of this arrange-
ment as affording the utmost facility to workmen — which means
saving in the expense of repairs to shipping — will be self-evident.

The actual cost of docking a ship, including coals and all
labour — as will bo .seen in the tables — is very small. The Me.ssrs.
Cramp went to some trouble to furnish me with the exact figures
and give $21.08 as the cost for a vessel of 3,000 tons.

On the 0th of December I was fortunately able to witness
the whole opeiation of placing an ocean steamship in one of
these docks, and was much struck with the rapidity and ease
with which every detail of the work was performed. It took
30 minutes to biing the .ship into the dock and place her in her
proper position ; the pumps were then started, and the dock was
emptied in just 2h hours.

The lessees, as a rule, do all the repairs needed to the ships
occupying their docks, but shipmasters and owners are not
prohibited from doing their own repairs or work, or from
bringing in outside mechanics and laborers if they wish.

At the Port of New York (including Brooklyn and New
Jersey) there are, I am informed, besides the above docks,

1 large Wooden Balance or Floating Dock, about 300 feet
long.

1 large Sectional Dock, of wood.

2 smaller Docks of the same kir.d.

3 Screw Docks for vessels from 150 to 1,000 tons.
10 small Wooden Floating Docks, and

1 of " Kirkham's Patent Goff"er Dams."

THE cramps' dock, PHILADELPIIIA.

The excavatioriH for this clock were through disintegratocJ
gneiss, almost approaching in texture a heavy clay. This
material gradually became harder as the <ligging proceeded
downwards, until at about ten to fifteen feet below the bottom
of the dock it became so hard that the piles which were driven
into it had to be capped and pointed with ircn, and thc-
" Gunpowder Process " was resorted to to drive them, as it
was considered the quickest and best. The dock is a wooden
structure throughout, with the usual clay puddle for backing,
and an iron floating caisson to close the entrance. The altars
are of " Georgia pine," known in Halifax as " pitch pine," and
are carried up to the surface of the ground in the manner
customary in American wooden docks. It was commenced in
September, 1875, was nine months in building, and cost about
S300,000. The repairs account so far amounts to nothing, and the
dock is in excellent conditioa The number of hands employed
to dock a ship is nine, and their services are utilized to operate
a marine slip as well, which is situated alongside.

BALTIMORE DRY DOCK.

This is a wooden structure ; it was commenced in May, 1879,
and finished about 14 months afterwards, and is almost a fac
simile of the dock last described. The excavations were mostly
through tough clay, and the piles were driven into similar
material in the bottom about 25 feet. Two pile piers extend out
about 200 feet on each side of the entrance, and extensive
repairing shops for the accommodation of shipping and a large
"warehouse for the storage of goods have also been erected in the
immediate vicinity.

The whole works, including dock, engine and boiler-house,
offices, repairing shops, warehouse and piers, ifec, cost S3C5,500.
They are now leased for ten years to a private firm, who pay six
per cent, per annum, or about $22,000, in rental.

The promoters of this dock were " The Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad Co.," who, looking solely at the interests of their own
road, guaranteed the subscriptions to the stock, and took the
entire bonds of the Dock Company. The railroad company saw
that the traffic on their own lines must depend — at least to some
extent — upon the facilities offered at their ocean terminus for the
repair of shipping, as ship-owners and undi^rwriters, when
possible, invariably avoid a port destitute of such facilities, and
the company did not hesitate to assume the whole responsibility.

I need scarcely point out the weight of a similar argument
when applied to the Intercolonial Railway and the port of
Halifax.

;egratocl
^ Thi»
oceeded
1 bottom
driven
in<l the
111, as it

wooden
backing,
le altars
ne," and

manner
jnced in
)st about
, and the
mployed
operate

ay, 1879,
ost a fac
re mostly
similar
stend out
extensive
id a large
;ed in the

ler-house,

S365,5O0.

10 pay six

The United States Government are also interested in this
<lock, as it is built upon part of the lands of one of their
fortlKcations. The Government granted to the Dock Company
about fourteen acres of ground and water, being part of the Fort
McHenry tract, on condition that the Company " construct
^' within two years * • * an efficient ' Simpson's Improved
" Dry Dock,' * • * and to accord to the United States the
■" right to the use forever of the said dry dock, at any time, for
" the prompt examination and repair of vessels belonging to the
** United States, free from clmrgo for docking; and if at any
** time the said property hereby conveyed shall be diverted to
" any other use than that herein nained, or if the said dry dock
"' shall be at any time unfit for use for a period of six months or
" more, the property hereby conveyed, with all its privileges and
■"appurtenances, shall revert to and become the absolute property
" of the United States."

It should, perhaps, be explained that the condition, " free of
■charge for docking " is not intended to convey the meaning that
the Government ships may remain in dock for an unlimited time
free of charge, but simply that the fiist cost of the actual
operations rec[uired to place the ship safely in dock shall be free,
and that after that rates and dues may be charged in the usual
manner. As it costs at this dock only about $30 to dock a ship,
it will be seen that the Company are not very heavy losers.

In addition to the above dry dock^ there are at the Port of
Baltinnre one marine slip capable of taking a vessel of 1,200
tons, and a number of smaller ones, the largest of which has only
a capacity of about COO tons. There is also a sectional dock for
«hips up to about 1.300 tons.

The opinions of experts, of officers connected with the Bureau
of Yards and Docks, and of others, in relation to wooden and
stone docks, would add so much to the length of this report that
thoy are omitted ; they can, however, be given in detail at any
future time if required.

and Ohio
their own

took the
ipany saw
,st to some
lus for the
ers, when

lities, and
lonsibility.

argument
le port of

■♦a

.2
1

M
M
<

Happ JO i[«j puti

«api» jo imj piiH
o«u iCj«uipJO
-»pi^ ((8iq

^jvuipjo MOiaq
IIJ* jo mdflQ

'Xuuloo
iMO[aq niB
d%\ii JO q:|aa(|

-iuo)!)oq
aoutiJijna

?«

'iiuidoa
)« asuvj^ua
_J0_W!A\
'iCpoq ui
aoo|juoqjpiA\

*i(poq in
doa uo \\%\)i\\

•pwaq

Of jaaui)nqv

JO 8aoojS

jat^no luojj

do) uo q^Suai

•p«3q
o) aAoojS
jauui uio.tj
do!) uo q^Suaq

ii o- ^

t : "

s I "

"8 .S

M0»

tt<x>

CO
CO

. a

a oo 00 a

S ,-« r4 .3

S 2 c^

" 8

I = •

•5 ►.

o
55

.s
<•

iH f-l f-4 e^ <» o>

■4< a> o) r-< e> o> en

^J? 3* «•

■a *a

M e» rH

§3 SJSJ5 ^S3SSSlfs

S? J5 t;

W (M ^ 94

^ 8

C<l S w «

lO >o o

00 « s

CO ^» CO

to lA OO OO
^ -^ •^ ■«<

£ S S 9

SIAin OOQUSOQOOQ

-«<co csoaot-aet>'Ca

«»4

g§

Its

■4J

■^

1-1

l-H

i-H

i-H
rH

•pudq o^
aAoojS jauui
uiojj 'mo)
)oq api^Suaq

'pauadaap
qijdaa

-pauaqi8na|

'aoi()anj)8aoa
jo i«ua;Bi\[

'jaquin^ii

<
■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 ■* ■* ■*

« g s

« (N rH

?? g S

•^ f ■*

2 «
■-f in

fO M rH

-«1

00 lA t» 1ft

(N 50 CO rH

M ■V Ift -V

^ ^ a

«*4

■«»•

rH
rH

a
en

r3
o

o
o

-3

a
a

a
o

i-t

f-"

e»

r-l

o a r

rH c« eo <♦

m
oi

a
o

o
o

Q
■
'a.

*«

to CO »«

00 o>

'S ?l

^ -s

•-< :S

4> £

a 55

it
55

8 -S

• I

^ it*

1-1 »o «o

•^

1-1 •"* <o
tH © OO

o m o

l>. OJ Ol

-* ■* e*

r- 00 •-•

5 5 S

■4^

r-»

9«

b
■t

©< w V

4§

.a.

•I
a,

-«S
a*

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^

•2 °

o
O

* OS (-

§ O

i I

6 -^

■poinas
-uji

o
S5

OOO'SI

2 S S

•1 CO M 11

n <N OO M 64

C
V

1 i

S 3

■•a .«»

c c

■c

'A g

M
0>

CO Q

I i

o =>. o o o
S3

>-. *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
_£

•s

»5

c«

>
m
55
c c

•a
CM

H »< OO

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.

$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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

$ 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

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

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.

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. ....

, 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

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.

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.

a Oi

.'S'.QO

S-. ^

2- '^

'^^'^

^ ■>!

•S: «

"? '^

^5$

rfS

5: 'fi

<**

S *"

•«*

« -.

tonnage of
, durmg t

-^-s

<t^ M

^. i:

rik

qj -.

t? «

•^.^

S- r<>

<r« ^

•^1

e v:

. ^

i; iS

ro :i:

S '-C

S-

•^ ^:

« >-

'«

"Sj

•s i;

•^

•

247

I-t

■ g

'sassnp

•
;
:

;!5

joo^mox

Bjaaooqag

•B»ni')U38i.ia

•

puB sSug

•BanbjBa

•

•sdiqs

«C

■»t

■««<

2 „•

«f

ifl

" 1

oc
oc

1ft

" CTJ"
rH

mS.

C<1

s-s

•^

> oc

1 :

(?^1

i-i

>rf

C<l

t-l

-2 1

" S^l

e<j

■*

~ t-T

§1

•<*<

CX3

T-*

1:^

i-<

IlWJOSpSSSA

I-l

I-

o
o

|0"ONmo,I

•s-iauooqag

T-l

:
:

s i

puB sSug

^ :

•sanTjJBa

Q
>

•Bdiqg

• :

;

Tf :

•

l-H

•<*<

oo"

■35

s
o

'*<"

S<)

§-

■«1<

<»

h-.

•^

I— 1
r-T

\ ;

t»

tJ 1

•2

><
1

•4-

"3, c

1 P4 (!■

-3
1

: ^

3*^

!i5

3-2

u-e

•^5

« -

it ,

«ij tJ

•C« 5

■*

■2.2

>iJ

ctT

i-i

* ;

g S o

i« :?

O § 3

oS ii

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

|§5 2

J <N

g £ 5 i
« o 2 ~

C '^^ a> ■*-

o .^ ;=

S u « Ji

StoO'

: 'd

c '-■S S;

: «

1^1

■ -a
1 ^

=«K r 1.

3 -»