The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

22 MARINE REVIEW AND MARINE RECORD. vessels. 'The new armored cruisers may really be called cruiser- destroyers." " Mr. W. «:. Dobson could not see wherein the new designs could be improved and especially commended the arrangement of splinter bulkheads, wherebv each gun is practically in an isolated casement. Admiral Bowles in reading his paper had made an observa- tion aside to the effect that it was impossible to compare costs with foreign battleships owing to the fact that armor entered so largely into the cost of the vessel complete, and that the price of armor seemed to bear no relation whatever to the state of the market. This remark caused Mr. G. C. Hemming to relate a little experience of his own. He was in need of material to com- plete an undertaking on his own account and submitted his specifi- cations to the steel makers, who agreed to furnish the material at the rate of $23,500 per ton. Obviously as this was a prohibitive price he appealed to Krupp who furnished the material for $6,680 per ton, thouch of course, considerably less than a ton was in- volved in the order. MR. GEORGE W. DICKIE. Mr. George W. Dickie was born July 17, 1844, at at Arbroath, Scotland. He comes of a family of ship builders who had for several generations pursued the art. While still a child Mr. Dickie moved with his parents from Arbroath to Tay- port, Fife, Scotland. At the age of seventeen he was apprenticed to the engineering trade on the North British railway. At the end of his five years' term of appren- ficeship Mr. Dickie joined his father and brothers as a member of the firm of William Dickie & Sons, ship builders and engineers, at Tayport. In 1869 he went to California, set- tling at San Francisco, and was engaged from 1870 to 1883 as engineer at the Risdon Iron Works. In 1883 he joined the Union Iron Works, becoming manager and also a director of the company. This position he has held ever since. Mr. Dickie has had general supervision over the construction of all the war vessels that have been built by the Union Iron Works and many of his ideas have been incorporated by the navy department of the United States in the construction of war vessels. Mr. Dickie is a member of the council of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers; he is a past member of the council of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, is a life member and past president of the Technical Society of the Pacific coast and is a member of the board of trustees of the California Academy of Sciences. Mr. Dickie has five sons and a daughter. All the sons are virtually engaged in ship building. Mr. George W. Dickie. WHY IT TAKES SO LONG TO BUILD A NAVAL VESSEL. Mr. F. B. King read Mr. George W. Dickie's paper upon the subject, "Why it Takes So Lone to Build and Equip a Naval Vessel for the United States." Mr. Dickie, who is the manager of the Union Iron Works, San Francisco, prepared the paper for the purpose of startine discussion and in this he most admira- bly succeeded. Mr. King read the paper with emphasis on the humorous parts of it and it was evident before the reading was half over with that some spirited replies were in waiting. 'There was an abundance of defense from the standpoint of the naval constructor, and if the paper had come from anv other source the result would probably have been some ill feeling. A few of the members took the paper very seriously, but Secretary Capp of the society, who had been superintending constructor at San Fran- cisco, and was therefore speaking from the view of a naval officer /as well as a close acquaintance of Mr. Dickie, rounded out the discussion in a happy way. "As you may know," he said, "Mr. Dickie is one of the most charming of men and a profound hum- orist. We all know that relations between naval constructors and the contractors should be narmonious. Their troubles are by no means as serious as they would appear from this paper. If they were the records of ships built bv the Union Iron Works would not have been known to the world." Mr. Dickie's paper follows: : It is not the desire of the writer of this paper to find fault with the present system of producing naval vessels for our gov- ernment by contract, or to bring about a discussion that might hinder, rather than help, the efforts of those responsible for the ship designs prepares at our navy department, but rather to point out what in his opinion are the chief causes of delay in building these vessels, and thereby bring about stich a discussion on the [Noy. 27. methods of design and construction now practiced as will help to open the way for better methods, and give the technical advis- ors to the navy department the benefit of an unofficial discussion of this very important subject amongst those who usually have to handle such matters under official restraint. While it might be considered as taking somewhat of a risk to let such a cranky subject loose amongst the members of this society, yet we will en- deavor to give it sufficient metacentric height to keep the right side of it up, and if it be handled with great care, the building of naval vessels, even in the navy yard, will suffer no more damage from the discussion of this subject than they are likely to suffer - afterwards from the building of submarine torpedo boats. THE SUPERINTENDING NAVAL CONSTRUCTOR. In dealing with this subject the author naturally looks at it through the eyes of a contractor, which to the general public means dishonest eyes. We sometimes think that the navy depart- ment leans toward the public's estimate of a contractor; else why so. many provisions in specifications and contracts to protect the second party, who is the stronger, against the first party, who has only his own consciousness of honesty, and his honor as a ship builder, to protect him? In considering certain causes of delay in building naval vessels, the relationship of the superintending naval constructor, or the senior inspector of machinery, to the contrac- tor, may, of necessity, require to be discussed, and in this connection the author desires to state that in his opinion, based on a somewhat extended actual experience, no other government can boast of a finer staff of competent naval constructors and marine engineers, in charge of new work under construction for its navy, than that of the United States navy department. In fact, the ability of the superintending naval constructor, or senior inspector of mach- inery, is often quite embarrassing to the simple ship builder. We have often been astonished at the almost supernatural ability of the young naval constructor to acquire knowledge on subjects outside of his own profession. Let the bureau of construction and repair, for instance, assume responsibility in regard to cer- tain electrical installations on naval vessels, and in three months thereafter the naval constructors at the various yards will be farther advanced in the application of electrical science to the matter in hand than the contractors' expert, who has given his whole attention for vears to this special work. We do not refer to this fact, astonishing as it is, in order to raise any doubts as to its reality, as it must have been observed by others having the same relationship to the young naval constructor as the writer. We have admired this remarkable faculty, because it is so rare outside of those whose talents are exclusively controlled by the navy department. We,may have occasion in the course of this paper to appear as intimating that the great ability of the naval constructor often acts as a cause of delay in the building of the ship, and some statements may appear to have a personal tone. It will therefore be understood that no one is meant when any- one is referred to in connection with any part of this subject. One of the most important causes of delay in the construc- tion of naval vessels is the habit which has hitherto. prevailed of designing such vessels while they are under construction. We do not think that it will ever be possible to so design such ships that no change will appear desirable while they are building. It is not necessary that every detail plan should be complete before the structural work begins, but the designs should be complete in every particular, and the specifications should state distinctly how the actual details are to be carried out. One of the most recent specifications issued by the navy department requires that 253 of the most important items in construction should be built as directed, which means that at the time the specifications were written no oné connected with the design for the vessel could write down distinctly just how that design was to be carried out. The ship builder would like to carry out the work just as he thought it should be carried out when he made his estimate of cost, but between him and that honest purpose of his there stands the superintending constructor and his numerous assistants, and after them, the bureau they represent. Plans are made, only to be returned over and over again as unsatisfactory, and what seemed plain enough to the simple-hearted ship builder when makins his estimates, becomes now so complicated that the first year's time of the contract is lost in finding a way to carry out the contract. DESIGN SHOULD BE COMPLETED BEFOREHAND. Before the contract is executed the design should be so com- plete that all structural materials required could be ordered at once, without having to submit new plans for approval. The latest plans from the bureau of construction come nearer meeting this requirement than any we have had hitherto. 'The location and dimensions of every compartment in the vessel should be determined, and should not be subject to change. The dimen- sions. of every armor plate should be shewn, and it should be as- certained beforehand that such dimensions are within the manu- facturing capacity of the armor makers. The armament should be all finally settled as to amount and location, and the type of all gun ports not only indicated, but practically worked out. The magazines should be worked out in sufficient detail to demonstrate that they will properly stow the amount of ammunition they are specified to carry. All means of handling ammunition should appear on the Original design, and in capacity should correspond with the specifications. 'The arrangement of all machinery should be shown, with all piping and platforms, with a practical