Sergeant Hegeman Makes A Claim

[1SGDan]

On 17 March 1869 former Union army sergeant John Hegeman entered the Washington office of R.H. Marsh, Justice of the Peace, and made a sworn statement requesting $100,000 as compensation for the design of "a new and useful devise for a ponton bridge which had never before been known or used." The affidavit was presented to the United States Senate and "owing to the magnitude of this claim" a committee was formed to conduct investigative hearings to establish the legitimacy of Hegeman's claim. Two years later, in March of 1871, the evidence was ordered printed in Reports of the Committees of the United States Senate for the third Session of the Forty-First Congress.

In the winter of 1863-64 John Hegeman was enrolled as a member of Co. B 88th Illinois Infantry but while serving in Chattanooga he was detailed out to Company I, 2nd Battalion of the Pioneer Brigade. It was during this time that Hegeman became involved with the Army of the Cumberland pontoon trains. The bulky wooden French pontoon boat had plagued the US Army since the beginning of the war for its weight and difficulty of transportation. When he assumed command MG William S. Rosecrans ordered experiments in the construction of a light weight collapsible boat and several designs were proposed. Several of these boats were constructed and sent to Estill Springs on the Elk River for testing, but active campaigning took precedence and the project lost steam while the armies moved ahead with the traditional equipment.
Hegeman returned to Nashville with the test boats from the Elk River, including a boat design that became known as the "Cumberland Boat." As lead mechanic on the project Hegeman supervised the construction of the new design. The distinguishing feature of the boats constructed at the Nashville facility was a collapsible frame that allowed the boat to be reduced into an easily transportable size. When Sherman marched from Chattanooga in May of 1864 he took with him "seventy of said ponton boats" that Hegeman claimed were developed based on his idea. He accompanied the campaign as far as the Chattahootchie River when he was sent back to Chattanooga in October of 1864. During the Atlanta Campaign the status of the Pioneer Brigade changed. Key leaders had become disenchanted with the status of the engineering assets and the Brigade was dissolved. Some members were returned to their units to serve out their enlistments as infantrymen, while others were enlisted into the 1st United States Veteran Volunteer Engineers. In this capacity Hegeman claimed he continued constructing these boats for the US Army. According to his affidavit Hegeman "never received any compensation for his said invention." Hegeman fortified his claim by stating that after his release from active duty;

"he conceived the idea of additional improvements upon said ponton boat and began experiments for the purpose of perfecting the same. That after thoroughly and repeated experiments and tests he applied for a patent upon a boat combining all the essential novelties of his first invention with the improvements above referred to: and that letters patent were issued to him therefor, bearing date April 23, 1867."

 

[1SGDan]

Thank you Andy and Pvt Shattuck. As you may suspect as a famous radio broadcaster used to say you have not heard "the rest of the story."

 

[M E Wolf]

Thank you Andy and Pvt Shattuck. As you may suspect as a famous radio broadcaster used to say you have not heard "the rest of the story."

Paul Harvey....

M. E. Wolf

 

[1SGDan]

Government Response To the First Claim
The Senate committee charged with investigating the claim sought out the engineer leaders to provide evidence of Hegeman's story. From Hegeman's first line supervisor to the very top of the engineer chain of command they discovered an entirely different story. From Major Patrick O'Connell, who Hegeman claimed was the first to be told of his new invention, came this;

"His claim I consider to be totally unfounded."

After a lengthy description of the boat O'Connell further undermined Hegeman's claim;

"In February, 1864,the matter was again taken up, and I had several consultations on the subject with Captain William E. Merrill, United States Engineer, then chief engineer of the Army of the Cumberland. The consultations were public and were shared in by many different persons, staff officers, and others whom were entirely unconnected with the pontonier detachment. The result of these consultations was that we decided to replace the plates and pins by hinges, and I received orders to put hinges on one of the frames already constructed and to test it in the Tennessee. To the best of my knowledge and belief this was done under my direction by Sergeant Wynes and two or three privates of the pontonier detachment, Sergeant Hegeman then being on duty with the quartermaster of the Pioneer Brigade."

"The change from plates to hinges was a very natural one and one which no one person could have claimed as a special invention having probably simultaneously suggested itself to many minds. I have no recollection whatever of Sergeant Hegeman having had any connection with the experiments to this date.(February 1864)"

Following the successful tests at Estill Spring O'Connell traveled to Nashville with Sergeant Wynes and another man (not Hegeman) to present the design to BG William "Baldy" Smith and Captain Orlando Poe. Smith and Poe found the boats to be quite satisfactory and approved construction. According to O'Connell Sergeant Wynes was detailed to establish the construction facility and supervise the construction of the new model "Cumberland Boat" which differed from the standard "Russian Canvas Boat" in six ways.

1. The sides were divided and connected by hinges
2. The framing of the sides was different, there being more pieces of smaller dimension and differently combined
3. The canvas fastenings were attached to a horizontal iron rod instead of to hooks.
4. The flooring pieces were smaller but more numerous and they were kept in place by a rope passing through them, which could be used to tie them into bundles when not in use.
5. There were more transverse braces across the boat made in a novel manner.
6. Other minor changes such as iron plates to protect exposed surfaces and different shapes for some of the flooring pieces.

O'Connell went so far as to assign responsibility for the invention of each of these innovations.

1. A common decision among all parties.
2. O'Connell claimed this for himself with suggestions from his mechanics.
3. O'Connell claimed this for himself
4. One of the sergeants, although he could not remember which one
5. O'Connell, Lieutenant James Willet and Sergeant Wynes.
6. O'Connell recommended the iron plates and suggested the change in design to the floor pieces.

Finally, O'Connell stated that all his remembrance was strictly that, he had no physical evidence to back up his memory.

 

[1SGDan]

The Decision
As to the second part of Hegeman's affidavit that his post war activities in the development of the boats led to a patent a board of officers chaired by no less than the estimable Major J.C. Duane considered his claim. Their findings were forwarded with an endorsement from the LTC H. G. Wright. The brief statement was equally as condemning to Hegeman's efforts as O'Connell's.

"Mr. Hegeman's boat is more costly, more complicated, more liable to become unserviceable, and more difficult to repair than the patterns now in service, and has no material advantage in respect to weight."
The board made the following comparisons between Hegeman's boat and those that were currently in service.
Hegeman Standard Boat
Length 24 Ft 21 and 26 Ft
Weight 415 lbs 440 and 779 lbs
Frame Cost $115 $85.63 and $98.17
Canvas weight - 78 and 91 lbs

The board conceded that Hegeman's design could be folded into a more compact size for transportation and might be useful as a portable raft for movement of troops. But these factors were not enough to sway their regard for his patent.

"This advantage is not considered sufficient to warrant the introduction of Mr. Hegeman's boat as part of a regular bridge train."

Still more damning was the testimony of William Merrill, former Chief Engineer of the Army of the Cumberland. Merrill completely dismissed Hegeman's claim with the following statements.

"The claim that Sergeant Hegeman communicated to me the plans of a ponton which he had invented and which I adopted for the Army I consider having no foundation in fact."

"The statement that I put him in charge of mechanics to construct pontons in not true."
Sergeant Wynes was in charge of the construction of these pontoons while Hegeman was only an assistant in charge of a squad."

Adding insult to injury Merrill further noted that Sergeant Wynes performance in this matter had so impressed him that he procured an officer commission for him. Needless to say the weight of the testimony was clearly against Hegeman. Not surprisingly the record entries end with a terse statement.

"The committee recommends that the petition be not granted."

For those interested in these activities and equipment the opinions recorded in this case came from some of the most important engineer officers of the war (Duane, Poe, and Wright) and make interesting reading.

http://books.google.com/books?id=46YFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA324&dq=Sergeant+John+Hegeman&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aUmUU6eGMbSnsQT6s4CoDg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Sergeant%20John%20Hegeman&f=false

 

[CW3O]

Yesterday, while travelling on Rte 146 in Massachusetts I happened to pass a large military convoy carry a modern pontoon bridge, complete with a few trucks carrying the push boats. I noted the modern pontoons are hinged in the middle to fold open when put into the water. Is this a modern adaptation of the idea of the discussion here?

 

[1SGDan]

Yesterday, while travelling on Rte 146 in Massachusetts I happened to pass a large military convoy carry a modern pontoon bridge, complete with a few trucks carrying the push boats. I noted the modern pontoons are hinged in the middle to fold open when put into the water. Is this a modern adaptation of the idea of the discussion here?

The modern bridge is hinged to open as it enters the water. Unlike the Cumberland boat which was hinged lengthwise the modern boats are hinged across their width. I brought this up because reading this testimony taught me more about these boats than I had learned in all the rest of the time I have been working on CW engineering.