« PoprzedniaDalej »
were the same class
, and the contract price $
It is not liberal to lose the use of your vessel the Massasoit, the Sassacus, and the Osceola. whole. I do not see any fairr ess about it. If all the summer, and then in November pay for The Senator from Indiana says these vessels | it is right that Curtis & Tilden should have it the saine as if you had had it originally ; but
$1,000 above the contract price, it should be it must be liberal to take it off the contractors' was the same. Now, I want Senators to note right that Paul Curtis should have the same bands and pay their bills.
the fact that when George W. Lawrence & Co. unless he shows a difference, and he fails to “The principal causes of delay"
build the Agawam and the Pontoosuc, they make show any. This is their own statement; it is not anything them cost $17,000 above the contract price; Now turn to page 44, and you will find the as to the weight of the engine, but it is the delay but when Curtis & Tilden build the saine class case of the machinery of the Chicopce: I am now complaining of
they make them cost only about nine thousand “Appeared before the board Mr. William Boardman, “The principal causes of delay being the difficulty
dollars beyond the contract price; and in the one of the proprietors and on the part of the Neptune of obtaining labor ond material, as the Government case of the Pontoosuc and the Agawam, the
Iron-Works, contractors for the machinery of the Fas putting out so much work.'
Chicopee and Tallapoosa. Under onth states, that engine-builders make the engines cost $80,000 the contract for the vessel was dated by the Navy DeIt was this very work that the Government ! beyond the contract price; and in the other partment August 15, 1862, in which they were allowed was putting out that these people undertook case, the Atlantic Works only make them cost
seven months, or two months after the receipt of the
hulls from the builders thereof, to complete and creet to do, and undertook to do in a given time, for $41,000 beyond the contract price. Why that the machinery on board; but that the Chicopee was a given price, and which they delayed to do, difference? Why should this Government pay
not received until March 11, 1863, and the machinery and for which they received a full price, and one set of builders $80,000 beyond the con
was completed, and trial trip satisfactorily concluded
on January 23, 1864; and the Tallapoosu was not reare now not satisfied. The company was re- tract price, and another set of builders, for two ceived until March 16, 1803, and the machinery was lieved by the Navy Department of the term of engines of exactly the same class, $11,000 above completed, and trial trip also satisfactorily concluded the contract regarding the time of the comple- | the contract price? How happensit, except from
March 12, 1861; they were relieved by letter from De
partment in regard to the time of completion of contion of the machinery. They found that they | the unskillfulness and the want of dilligence tract prior to the signing of the contract. That tho could not get along with it, and this Govern- on the part of these men in building these en- actual cost of machinery was, including extra bill ment, that it is said should be liberal, was not gines?And yet this report says pay these gen
of $2,065 75 yet unpaid, $206,001 3.7; contract prico hard; it extended the time, and then they went
received from Government, $164,00); leaving an extlemen at Portland $80,000 beyond the price, cess of cost, over and above the contract price, of on; and they say that it was finished as soon and pay these gentlemen at Boston $40,000
$12,001 35. as possible; that the total cost of the machin- beyond the price. It seems to me, a man had Twenty-one thousand dollars on each vessel ery for both vessels was $205,027 46." Here only to delay his work the longer to get the for delaying her at the wharf eleven months, was a small vessel, the contract price for build- more money, for they give him all he says it | depriving the Government of the use of her alí ing the hull of which was only $25,000, and cost him; and so the longer he delayed and through the summer of 1863 and the fall of yet the price of one of these engines, as made the more it cost, the more they gave him. 1863, the winter vi 1863 and 1864 up to April by the machine-builders when they got through, Now, Mr. President, I ask Senators to turn in the spring of 1864; and yet this very nig. was $102,513 83.
to the Chicopee. I have been through the gardly Government, this Government that is Mr. HENDRICKS. I will state to the Sen- whole range of these double-enders; they are exhorted so much to deal fairly by these gen. ator that it is very evident that that is a mis- in the same way. I do not want to weary the tlemen, deprived of the use of this vessel for take in the printing of the report.
Senate, but I want to show enough of these eleven months, comes forward and pays the Mr. CLARK. Is not the record right? cases to let the Senate see what they are about contract price, pays the full bill for extra work,
Mr. HENDRICKS. There is a mistake in to pass upon. I do not deny that there may and then is asked to pay all the enhanced cost printing.
be some good cases here; I think some of the by reason of the delay. Is it fair? Is that the Mr. CLARK. What should it be?
gentlemen who built the hulls of these vessels kind of liberality you would recommend to your Mr. HENDRICKS. They all cost the same and were delayed in this way are entitled to Government to the tax-payers? Now, as to a price. Eighty-two thousand dollars was the the additional expense; but I do not think the contract between two individuals where one contract price.
men who put on board the engines and loaded | stipulated to have a given work done by a given Mr. CLARK. They do not undertake to them down with delay and deprived the Gov. time and he failed for a year to do it, if the man say what was the contract price, but what was ernment of them for that extent of time should who contracted for the work should come forthe cost of building the engines. I am speak- also be paid for that delay. On page 17 you
ward and take it off that man's hands and pay ing of the cost to the builder.
will find the statement of Mr. Curtis, who built him the price and say, “Here, you have done the Mr. HENDRICKS. It ought to be $82,000. the Chicopee :
work and I will pay you the full price and take That was the contract price; and then the cost Appeared before the board Paul Curtis, ship- || it, though I have been delayed,” would not that beyond that was what it cost the contractor
builder, Boston, and contractor for the double-ender be considered liberal? Would the man that had above the contract price.
Chicopee. Under oath states, that the contract for
done the work ask for anything more? Yet here Mr. CLARK. If the Senator will give his September 9, 1862, in which he was allowed one hun- they undertake to say we must pay not only this attention to the report he will see that there
dred and twenty-six days, or until January 13, 1863"- individual. man, not only this individual firm, is no mistake here--" that the total cost of The contracts were all given out at about but we must pay every one of these forty-two machinery for both vessels was $205,027 46." the same time, and they were to be ready at right straight through twelve per cent. on the That is what it cost the builders, as they say about the same period
whole contract price, not because they would " that the contract price of both vessels paid to launch the vessel and deliver her to the engine- not be glad to have more, but because they have by the Government was $164,000.”
builders; but the vessel was not put in the water loaded it so down with the weight of delay that Mr. HENDRICKS. I was not observing
until March 4, 1863, as the engine-builders (Neptuno
they know these iron-clads will not swim with
such a load upon them. to is in another case, where the cost is printed The same excuse again. It would almost Mr. President, I suppose it is hardly neces. as being $50,000, when it should evidently be seem that these fellows had got this excuse
sary that I should go through with case after $150,000. This is correctly printed. stereotyped; they all agree upon it. They
case of this kind. You may take any one of Mr. CLARK, I thought there were some were delayed by the engine-builders !
these double-enders and you will find much mistakes in the report, but I am not mistaken
"That the vessel was delivered to the Neptune Iron
the same state of things. I cannot say that here. This is correct. The hull cost $25,000, Works March 11, 1863, and they were allowed lift; you will in every case, because I have not exand the machinery $102,500.
days, or until May 1, 1863, to erect the engines on amined; I cannot affirm or deny; but I say Mr. HENDRICKS. I understand this now. board, but the machinery was not completed and put
that in all the cases I have examined I find on board until April 1, 1861, at which time she was My attention was not given to what the Senadelivered at the navy-yard, New York."
this same state of things. And now I will ask tor was saying at the time. I thought he said
the Senator from Nevada if he can tell me
They were to have had it on board May 1, that the cost of the machinery was $50,000. 1863; they did not have it on board until April | where in this report. I shall find the report in Mr. CLARK. No. 1, 1864, eleven months afterward.
regard to the hull of the Mendota. Has the Hr. HENDRICKS. It is stated that the
Senator seen it? Does he know it is there?
"By which delay on the part of the engine-buildcost of the hulls was $50,000.
ers he was at great loss, by being obliged to pay Mr. NYE. I think it is here. Mr. CLARK. The two.
larger prices for material and labor to coinplete the Mr. CLARK. I will ask the Senator from Mr. HENDRICKS. But evidently that ought
vessel. That the entire cost of the vessel, includ-
Indiana. These gentlemen have undoubtedly to be $150,000. There is no doubt about that. $97,674 61; that the contract price of the vessel, de
considered this case. I want them to tell me The contract price was $150,000, and the cost
livered in New York, was $75,000; that he has received where in the report of this commission I can
from the bureau for extra work, $3,304 20; total
find the report as to the building of the hull to be. It is a mistake in printing there. ing a balance of loss to him, over and above the con
of the Mendota. I state to them that I have Mr. CLARK. I do not know but that that tract price and allowance for extra work,of $18,870 41." been unable to find it; that is as it is put down
Now, turn to the table again. Paul Curtis | here. I want to know from them if they have Mr. HENDRICKS. Unquestionably so. It built one of these vessels, taken at the same found it, and if they have examined it. I wait, belongs to a class.
time, at the same rate, when labor was scarce Mr. President, for those Senators to show me, Mr. CLARK. But it is not material to the and materials scarce; the contract price was if they can, where the Mendota is found here. argument, as I understand. This man says $75,000, and she cost $97,674 61, making an Mr. HENDRICKS. Do you want an answer the excess of cost was $41,027 46 for the two. excess over the contract price and extra allow. | right now? Now, I want to call the Senate's attention to ance of $18,870 41 ; four times almost as much Mr. CLARK. If you know where it is what appears in regard to these two classes of as the extra cost price in the case of Curtis | found. vessels. The contract price for the Agawam & Tilden. Now, we are asked to pay this, and
Mr. HENDRICKS. I will examine. and the Pontoosuc, as found on pages 16 and the committee say this is right and this is fair ; Mr. CLARK. Has the Senator seen it and 17, was $164,000, just the same that it was for II and they want to give a percentage to the lI examined it?
Mr. HENDRICKS. Yes, sir, and I will for gunboat Mendota, I am of opinion that some of find it presently.
the charges are improper, and that he be requested
to examine and correct them." Mr. CLARK. Well, Mr. President, perhaps
Here was this board established for the purI can help these gentlemen a little. I only
pose of ascertaining the cost; they met towanted to see the care with which they have
gether, and they notified contractor A to come examined this report.
before the board at such a time; they notified Mr. NYE. When we ask you to help us we
contractor B to come before the board at such will let you know. I propose to answer you. Mr. CLARK. The Senator from Nevada
a time; and they came, they made up their in his quiet way says that when they find it
costs, and then those bills were examined ; they will let me know.
they were submitted to the naval constructer,
he was asked whether they were right and Mr. NYE. No, I did not say that. Mr. CLARK. Or in substance, that when
proper; in many of the cases he said they they ask for my aid they will let me know.
were right and proper. In other cases he said Mr. NYE. Yes; that was it. You will
they were not right and proper; and “Mr. make your own speech, I suppose.
Contractor won't you correct them?”?
I ask the attention of the Senate for a few The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Doo
moments-because I will not run through all LITTLE in the chair.) The Senator from Nevada will address the Chair.
these cases, there are forty-two of thein, and Mr. CLARK. I did not know but that pos
they would weary the patience of the Senate
and take up too much time-to the case of the sibly I might have fallen into a mistake. I have
engine of the Lenapee, on page 42: my own notion about this matter, but I wanted the aid of those honorable Senators in investi
“Appeared before the board Mr. Joseph Belknap,
superintendent, and on the part of the Washington gating it. I hunted this report through and I Works, contractors for the machinery of the Levacould not find the report of the Mendota for pee. Under oath states, that the contract for the
vessel was dated by the Navy Department August building the hull, but I did find something
25, 1862, in which they were allowed six and a half which I suppose was meant for that, but is not
months, or within two months after receipt of hull that. If the Senators will turn their attention from builders thereof, to complete and erect the to the fifth page.
machinery on board; but that the vessel was not so
received until June 19, 1863, and the machinery was Mr. HENDRICKS. I will tell you where cornpleted August 31, 1861. The principal causes of you will find it, sir. You will find it on page
delay in completing the contract were owing to the 5; it is there printed as the Mercedita ; refer
bursting of a boiler while being tested, and difficulty
in obtaining labor and material." ence is also made to it on page 32. That is
They have built an imperfect boiler, and while my understanding. Mr. CLARK. I suppose that is so.
they were testing it it burst, and so they were
caused delay. turned this book through and I could find no such vessel as the Mendota ; that is, no con
“That the cost of machinery was $111.161 24; con
tract price received, $82,000; leaving an excess of cost. tract for the hull. I then recurred to the table. over and above contract price, of $29,161 24." I found the Mendota placed there at such a And precisely that amountof cost, $20,161 24, price, and looking through I came across the was allowed them when they set down the exname of the builder, Mr. Tucker, of Brooklyn, tra delay to the bursting of a boiler which they New York, who is said to have built the Men- had made imperfect. I suppose if they had dota, but here he is reported to have built the burst entirely up and blown their shop up, the Mercedita, and the Mercedita is nowhere to whole would have been passed in. It does be found in the table. We had a vessel called
not seem that it made any difference what was the Mercedita. I think she was at New Or- claimed, what went into the cost, whether it leans in the fight there. I think she was pur- was interest on shop and tools that were not chased by the Government; she was not one fitted for the work, whether it was the unskillof these vessels.
fulness of the contractors and the workmen, “F. 2. Tucker, ship-builder at Brooklyn, Long or whether it was the want of preparation, or Island, and constructer of the United States steamer Mercedita, having been duly sworn, stated that the
the bursting of a boiler, or anything else that contract for above ship was signed September 9, 1862, went into the cost, it was allowed; and now to be launched and builded (in one hundred and we are asked to pay twelve per cent. on the twenty-six days) on January 13, 1863; that the vessel
contract price. was launched on that day and delivered to enginebuilders, after being coppered, on January 24, 1803,
I should be glad to see some measure before to receive her machinery.
the Senate that would do more justice to these This man got his vessel along; she was people than this. If a man is entitled to the launched on the day.
consideration of the Senate, has been delayed
by the Government and for that reason has “That the total cost of the vessel was $92,475 70, as per statement marked No. 4, and annexed to these been put to cost, that cost ought to be paid. proceedings-the contract to have been $75,000); that It should not be twelve per cent. If he has there was paid by him for extra work done over the
been delayed by his own unskillfulness, his prioc, by order of luspector S. M. Pook, and others, the sum of $1,020 70. as per statement marked No.5,
own negligence, his own want of care and skill and annexed to these proceedings; and also for work and industry, then he should not be paid, not done in accordance with specifications, but not required in general advertisements for bids under
twelve per cent. nor any other percentage. which the ship was commenced, by authority of the
These people say: bureau to have been $7,335 73, as per statement “That the excess of cost was owing to the risc in markod No. 6, and aunexed to these proceedings; labor and material, and also to the fact of the time of leaving a loss on his part, over and above these
the completion of the engine being extended over and amounts, of $0.119 27 on the original contract price above the time specified by the contract, due to the for the hull; that no money for extra work has ever fact of our being unable to procure the necessary been paid to him over and above the contract stipu- labor and material." lation; that the engines and boilers were to be completed by builders of machinery in fifty days, or
I will ask the Senate to turn for a moment March 14, 1863, but was not completed until February to the case of the hull of the Lenapee, which 14, 1861, (three hundred and forty days.)"
is found on page 13—I think I alluded to this Eleven months after they were agreed to be before--where the contract price was $75,500 furnished they were furnished. All this time and the cost price $150,000, more than double the hull of the vessel was rendered useless by what the Government offered to give them. the delay of the engine-builders. This man They contracted to do this work for $75,500, may deserve his price for his hull for aught I and they say the total cost of the vessel, includ. know; it is not very much above the contract ing the bill for extra work, was $162,691 37. price-I believe some four thousand dollars; || Now, Paul Curtis, of Boston, built the Chicopee, and yet I think there is something in this a vessel of the same class with the Lenapee. report that will show the manner in which He took his contract on the 9th of September, these costs were made up. I ask the Senators' 1862; and Edward Lupton, the contractor for atiention to page 31 in regard to this gunboat | the Lenapee, took his contract on the 9th of Mendota. On the 19th of June, 1865, Mr. September, 1862, precisely the same day. Of Tucker made up his bill of costs for that ves- course the same price for materials was to sel and presented it to the board. Mr. Naval || be paid by both. The same prices for labor Constructor Pook was asked about it on page were to be paid by both. One was operating 31, and in regard to that bill he says:
in New York, near the commercial center, and “Having examined the extra bills of F. 2. Tucker, the other was operating at Boston. They were
each allowed one hundred and twenty-six days, until January 13, 1863, to complete their contract. Mr. Curtis put his ship into the water on the 4th of March, 1863, and Mr. Lupton put his in the water on the 7th of June, 1863, three months afterward. Mr. Curtis built his ship for $97,674 61, and Mr. Lupton made his ship cost $152,691 37. Under oath, he stated that to be the cost. The commission did not see fit to allow him such a bill of costs as that, but they did allow Mr. Lupton $18,576 52, $2,000 inore than they allowed anybody else, and more than four times as much as they allowed Mr. Curtis.
I do not know that it is worth while for me to pursue these cases further. There are sev. eral more of them that I have examined, and they lead to the same result as those I have stated to the Senate. In general, the work upon the hulls of the wooden vessels seems to have been done with much more rapidity, and much nearer the time at which they were to be delivered, than the work on the machinery.
I suppose, when the Government was hiring hands for its navy-yards and its ships, and when the men were going into the Army and the Navy, there was a difficulty in obtaining labor ; but I do not understand why the difficulty was so much greater in procuring mechanics for ship machinery than procuring ship-carpenters in yards. Both employments require skill; both are carried on by artisans peculiarly fitted for the profession; and yet the men who built the halls seem to have had far less difficulty than the men who undertook to build the machinery. But, sir, you undertake by this bill to give precisely the same percentage to the men who built the machinery, and from whom most of the delay came, that you do to the men who built the hulls. 'I do not undertake to find fanlt with the men who built the machinery for these vessels. I do not undertake to talk about the mechanic. I unertake to talk simply about the cases that are presented here. I have examined the report which has been presented here by the commission. I have taken the testimony which these gentlemen have furnished themselves; and I can come to no other conclusion whatever than that this bill ought not to pass.
I do not mean to say that there are not some persons included in this bill who might be entitled to perhaps all that this bill proposes to give them; there are others who are perhaps entitled to the twelve per cent. which the amendment proposes to give them; but I am entirely satisfied there are men here who ought not to have the twelve per cent. I am entirely pursuaded that this leveling process of giving a percentage to all these people, no matter how they have done their work, how faithfully or unfaithfully, how skillfully or unskillfully, is not the true priuciple of legislation.
Sir, if a man has built, for instance, Army wagons under a contract with the Government, and he has found labor and material enhanced, why should you not give him twelve per cent.? If a man has made guns for the Government, whether small-arms or ordnance, by contract, why should you not give him twelve per cent.? They worked for the Government; they are mechanics; they are deserving; the derange. ment was the same to all. Why should you not say, by a general omnibus bill, tbat everybody who contracted for labor and material for the Government should have twelve per cent. over and above the contract price? Some of them made money, it is true; but the price of labor was enhanced to them just as much, the price of machinery was enhanced just as much, and the price of material.
I believe, sir, that the pending question is the motion of the Senator from Missouri [Mr. HENDERSON] to postpone the bill until the next session of Congress. I shall vote for the motion to postpone, if the friends of the bill desire to have it postponed, if they think any measure can be arrived at which shall do justice, I mean individual justice, to these people; but it the bill is not postponed I shall vote against its passage as it stands. I know we are urged to
If I pay
pay the twelve per cent. I know it is said that | machinery. We will take that case to which the machinery when finished. Is there no equity it does not take more than half as much as the Senator has referred, and I wish to go a there? Is there no justice for these claimants, the committee report, and you had better give little further than the Senator did. I call the as shown upon the report, in the very case that that to them; the Government will have as attention of the Senate to page 44 of the re- the Senator makes a forcible argument upon? much to pay in the end. But, sir, I want to port, as the Senator did, and let us see whether Is there nothing to be considered by the Senbe more discriminating,
the argument ought to have all the force that ate in the fact that the Department, before the I want to pay the money to the men who ought to the Senator gives it. He gives it as much force contract was signed, found that it was imposhave it, and not to the men who do not deserve as it is possible for it to receive. He makes sible for the machinery to be constructed within to have it. Assure me that every one of these the case thus: the contractors for the hull were the time limited, and by letter allowed them a men ought to have the twelve per cent., and I delayed in the completion of their work, and longer time? Is it not to be considered by the will yield; but until that time comes 1 must loss was sustained by them, because the ma
Senate that when the contract was made the vote against the bill.
chinery was not finished according to the agree- || specifications and drawings were not prepared, Mr. HENDRICKS. I have but a very few ment of the contractors. Now, how does the the parties were not informed so as to form a remarks to make in reply to the Senator from case stand? It appears that the contract was judgment of the size and weight and cost of New Hampshire, and when I shall have made | signed on the 15th day of August, 1862, at the this machinery? Is it not to be considered by them, I shall have said all that I intend to say Department, and the machinery was to be fin- the Senate that when the work came to be upon this measure, so far as I am concerned. ished in seven months, two months after the || made, it was found that the material itself cost It shall then depend on the pleasure of the completion of the hull. The Chicopee was not the contractors as much as the contract price? Senate. I shall not undertake to reply to all received until March, 1863:
That is all that I have to say upon that case. that the Senator has said. Much that he has
“The machinery was completed and trial trip sat- On page 17 we find the case of the Osceola. said I attempted to explain on a former occa- isfactorily concluded in January 24, 1861."
The Senator made a strong point upon that. sion; for instance, his comparison of the ex- It ought to have been completed in June, On page 7 will be found the contract and state. pense and cost of some of these vessels to some 1863, but was not completed until January, ment for the hull. The contractors for the hull of the contractors, as compared with the cost 1864.
showed that they could not complete the hull to other contractors. I undertook to explain "And the Tallapoosa was not received until March, until the machinery was completed. That is (as is explained in the report) on a former 16, 1863, and the machinery was completed and trial the point upon which the argument of the Senoccasion, that peculiar circumstances caused trip also satisfactorily concluded March 12, 1861"
ator turned, that the hull could not be comthe machinery to cost some men more than
ten months after the time limited for the pleted until the machinery was ready to be put others, and the hulls some men more than completion of the work. The report goes on into it. What is the statement of the contractothers. I thought I had explained that suffito say that the contractors “were relieved by
ors for the machinery? Let us see if they have ciently heretofore in answer to another gentle
letter from Department, in regard to the time no equity before Congress, admitting the argu
of completion of contract, prior to the signing ment just as strongly as the Senator states it, Now, sir, I will call attention to a few of of the contract.'
that the hull was not finished, and that the cost the cases to which the Senator has alluded; for
I ask Senators, how does that come? Here
of the hull was increased because the machinery instance, the Lenapee on page 13. Leaving | is a bid made; the specifications are not before
was not ready to be put in at the end of the six the Senator's argument alone, it would produce
the bidder; he has no opportunity to know months: the impression upon the Senate that this board exactly the style of the work; the party goes
“Appeared before the board Oliver Edwards, presihad allowed a very improper claim. The con
on with the work; and before the contract is dent of the Atlantic Works, East Boston, on the part tractors for the Lenapee undertook to build reduced to writing and signed, a letter of the
of tho company, contractors for the machinery of
the double-enders Sassacus and Osceola. Under oath that vessel for $75,000. They claim that she Department relieves him from the time agreed
states, that the contract for tho Osceola was dated Sopcost $152,000, making a claim of $77,000 of
upon. I ask the attention of the Senate to tember 20, 1862, and for the Sassacus, October 15, 1862 cost over and above the contract prices while | -- They were relieved by letter from Department, in this sentence:
in which they were allowed seven months, or until
April, 1863, and May 1863, to complete the machinery other contractors for vessels contracted for at
of said vessels and deliver them to the Government, the same time, and just like the Lenapee, only
regard to the time of completion of contract, prior to but the Sassacus was not so completed and delivered
the signing of the contract." claim from $14,000 to $18,000.
until September 1863, and the Osceola until November,
1863." Mr. CLARK. Some of them but a little
A different time was allowed, the Departover four thousand dollars.
ment becoming satisfied that it was impossible Several months, six months, perhaps, after Mr. HENDRICKS. I explained those;
to complete this work within the time speci- || the time limited in the contract. those were peculiar cases; but the average fied, within seven months :
“The principal causes of delay being the difficulty was about from $14,000 to $18,000. If the
“That the actual cost of machinery was, including
of obtaining labor and material, as the Government extra bill of $2,065 75 yet unpaid, $200,001 35; contract
was putting out so much work. That the company board had allowed to the contractors of the price received from Government, $164,000; leaving
was relieved by the Department of the terms of the Lenapee $77,000, and to others only from an excess of cost, over and above the contract price,
contract regarding the time ofcompleting the machin$14,000 to $18,000, the Senate, of course, of $12,004 35. That the excess of cost was owing to
ery, and was fully satisfied that it was finished as soon the great rise in labor and material, and difficulty in
as possible." would be astonished at such a result; but the procuring the same.'
If there was a contract made to build macase of the Lenapee was heard; all the evi
I believe the Senator stopped just there; || chinery which it was supposed would cost dence on the subject considered; and the board
but I will ask the attention of the Senate a did not allow the claim of $77,000.
$82,000, and it was intended between the Gov. little further.
ernment and the contractors that the work Mr. CLARK. So I stated. Mr. HENDRICKS. It allowed but $18,000.
Mr. CLARK. What page is the Senator should be finished in seven months; if in fact reading from?
it could not be done in the nature of things; Mr. CLARK. I stated that the board
Mr. HENDRICKS. Page 44:
if there was a mistake both on the part of the allowed about $2,000 above what they allowed
“There are many reasons why the engines cost in any other case.
Department and the contractors, a mutual mismore than the amount of contract: first, when the
take, and that mistake results in a great loss Mr. HENDRICKS. I know; but the Sen- engines were contracted for, drawings and specificaator failed to state the further fact that of the tions were not furnished us, and we were totally
to the contractors because of the fact that the ignorant as to the weight of said engines, boilers, &c. work had to be done at a time when material $18,000 allowed, $6,000 was for extra work, From the best information and belief, we were led to and labor cost so much more than was antinot within the contract at all, not yet paid for; suppose the machinery would weigh about three
hundred and cighty or three hundred and ninety cipated, I ask Senators, if, upon grounds of so that upon the Lenapee the board allowed
thousand pounds, and havo.to say that the raw mate- equity, the parties are not entitled to relief. for cost of the work over and above the con- rial was worth about the amount of the contract, for The Department felt that the work could not tract price, only $12,000. Is there anything the reason of the great excess of weight of metal over and above our estimate. We would also state,
be finished within the time. It is shown here in that case to prejudice the Senate against the that owing to the losses on these vessels in connection that the Department was satisfied that it was bill? And yet the argument of the Senator with those contracted for in 1861, namely, the Octowas as plausible in that case as perhaps in any rara and Genesee, we have been compelled to make
completed at as early a day as possible, and other.
an assignment. That there is no cbargo in the bill the Department itself relieved the parties from
(annexed to this record and marked No.42) for any the terms of the contract in regard to the time Now, sir, we will take up the case of the condemned material or faulty workmanship, and that limited. But further in the case, which tha Mendota, on page 31. Naval Constructer Pook the bill shows the actual cost of labor and material.”
Senator did not call the attention of the Sen. was called as a witness, and his testimony will I ask the attention of the Senate to this case,
ate to because it did not lie in the line of his be found on page 31. He testifies that some one of the cases upon which the Senator made of the charges made by the contractors for a very forcible argument. The facts are these:
argument-there was another point to which
he alluded in another part of his argument that vessel ought not to be allowed, and, com- before the contract was signed a letter from these contractors say: paring the claim made by the contractors with the Department relieved the parties from the
“That the excess of cost over and above tho con. the award of the board, I take it that those time fixed by the contract, seven months, and
tract price was due, mainly, to the fact that the conitems were not allowed. So much for that allowed them such time as was actually neces- tract was accepted upon the representation of Chief case. sary for the construction of the machinery;
Engineer Isherwood that the weight of material The next case is the Chicopee on pages 17
would not exceed that of the Paul Jones more than and secondly, when the contract was made the
fifteen per cent., when in fact it did exceed that of and 44. On page 17 it appears that the con- Department was not prepared to furnish the the Paul Jones seventy-fivo per cent.;, another cause tractors for the hull were delayed in complet- contractors with the drawings and specifica || being the rise of material and labor." ing that vessel by the failure to complete the tions, and therefore they could not know the There is their case. They did delay the commachinery, as they claimed, and therefore it exact dimensions of the machinery; and when || pletion of the hall; that is not to be questioned ; cost them something more on that account than they came to construct this machinery they || but how did it occur that they delayed the comit otherwise would have cost. Now, let us see found that the raw material, the iron alone, | pletion of the hull? It occurred because of the what is the claim of the contractors for the cost them about what they would receive for fact that such machinery could not be con.
39Th Cong. Ist SESS.-No. 140.
structed in seven months. Here is the machin- much heavier machinery than was contem- chinery was specified when the contract was ery for twenty-two vessels, and in po sin. || plated by any of these contractors, certainly reduced to writing, though not when the work gle case was that machinery completed within ought to control when we come to administer was commenced. I ask the attention of Senthe seven months. Why? Senators will not equity between the Government and the citizen. ators to that important fact. Parties come here say that all the contractors were negligent; that There was a point made about a misprint of and make propositions to construct machinery. all the contractors lacked means to prose- the name of the Mendota. That was called at The specifications and drawings are not precute the work with diligence. That cannot be the proceedings of the board Mercedita. I was pared. They can know but little about it. They pretended; but it is apparent, as I think, that embarrassed to understand that when I came propose to construct the machinery for $82,000 it was impossible to complete the work within to examine the case; I could not find the re
They go on and commence the that time. In these two instances to which I port of the Mendota, and the facts of the case, work. Afterward the specifications are drawn have called the attention of the Senate in re- but upon a careful examination I succeeded, as up, and it appears, after they have commenced sponse to the Senator from New Hampshire | the Senator himself seems to have succeeded, the work, that it costs very much more to build the Department felt that the work could not be in identifying the vessel. The Mercedita men- the engines and boilers than was expected. I completed in the time fixed in the contract, tioned on page 5 is the Mendota unquestionably. ask if that does not establish an equitable right and extended the time, and held that the work Mr. CLARK. If the Senator turns to page to relief on the part of the contractors. I was done at as early a day as possible. Then 32 of the report he will find it.
believe that was the case in regard to every one the further point is stated, that Mr. Isher- Mr. HENDRICKS. That is the contract for of them; that the work, in fact, was commenced wood, who, I understand, is a very skillful man the machinery:
before these contracts were reduced to writing, in his profession and a very competent officer, Mr. CLARK. It is down near the bottom under the supposition that the machinery would thought that this machinery would not weigh of the page:
be about of the weight and cost of the Paul more than fifteen percent. above that of the Paul
"Appeared before the board F. Z. Tucker, con- Jones, or rather the weight of the Paul Jones; Jones, but when the machinery came to be tractor for the double-ender gunboat Mendota, with the cost would be greater, inasmuch as there constructed according to the specifications and explanations and corrections of the bills of cost of
had been an advance in labor and material. said gunboat, rendered on the 19th June, 1865." drawings subsequently furnished, it weighed
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. NYE] has called far beyond that and cost enormously above the
If the Senator will refer back to that date,
my attention to the evidence that is furnished sum contemplated. he will see that Tucker, who was the con
on page 21 as the weight of the machinery of The Senator has called the attention of the tractor, rendered evidence in regard to the
the Paul Jones : Senate to the fact that the contract price of Mercedita, on page 5, so that that makes it
“That the excess of cost, over and above the conthe machinery for the Paul Jones was $52,000. very certain that that must bave been the
tract price, was due to the greater weight of engine In the investigation of these cases I did not same vessel.
than the contractors were led to expect them to be. think it important to inquire into the case of
On page 13, in regard to the Lenapee, I
Mr. Isherwood, chief of the Bureau of Steam Engi
neering, having assured them that they would not the Paul Jones. That was machinery built
understood the Senator to say that the extra exceed those of the Paul Jones class-three hundred before these contracts were made. That was
work was included in the award of $18,576 52. and seventy-four thousand pounds." machinery built when everything was at the
Mr. HENDRICKS. So I understand.
Another one of the contractors says, under very lowest price, a contract made long before
Mr. CLARK, Where is the evidence of
oath, that he understood that the machinery that? these contracts were made, and machinery com
was to weigh from three hundred and eighty pleted before these contracts were made, and
Mr. HENDRICKS. I will give it directly. to three hundred and ninety thousand pounds ; machinery, as I understand it, completed before That is my impression.
and the evidence in the case of the Pawtuxet there commenced to be an advance in the cost Mr. CLARK. The Senator will see, by is that the machinery weighed six hundred of labor and material. If the Senator be right turning to page 13, that the contract price and thirty thousand pounds, almost double that that machinery cost but $52,000, what was $75,500, and that the contractor has re- that of the Paul Jones. That mistake ran weight ought that fact to have upon the judg. || ceived a requisition on his claim for extra through all these cases, in regard to the weight, ment of Senators? That work was done when
work of $5,923 48, which he has never pre- and I submit to Senators whether the Senator iron cost but half what it did afterward ; and if
sented to the Navy agent for payment. He from New Hampshire has succeeded in estabSenators will look at the table accompanying has got a requisition for that amount, and this lishing a substantial error in the report of the the report of the committee they will see that other amount is all for work on the Lenapee, board in regard to any of the other cases. His the labor upon the machinery of the Paul Jones, without extra work, as I understand.
argument is aimed at the contractors for the and the material used in its construction, could
Mr. HENDRICKS. My impression was machinery. When it appears that there was a not have cost the contractors one half of what when I examined the case originally-I have | mistake on the part of the Department and on it cost these men to complete their contracts. not examined it to-day-that that $6,000 was the part of each one of these contractors in Therefore it is no fair test, that because the included in the award; but I may be mistaken regard to the time necessary for the construcPaul Jones in 1861 could be built for $52,000, about that. If I am mistaken, it is $18,000; tion of the machinery; when it appears that all these ought to be built for that sum, or they
if I am correct it is $12,000 on the cost of the the contractors thought, at the time they made ought to be built for $82,000. The contract
vessel. From reading the report, I thought it their bids, upon the representations made to price was $82,000, and it is evident beyond all was as I stated.
them in the Department, that this machinery question that the machinery did cost får above In the case of the Mendota, on page 5, there would weigh about as much as the machinery that.
is a statement rendered by the contractor; and of the Paul Jones, and when it further appears I cannot undertake to go over all the cases on page 31, Naval Constructer Pook was called that the machinery weighs greatly more, and that have been referred to by the Senator ; but as a witness, and testified that some of the is greatly more expensive, I ask Senators if I say the fact that in not one single iņstance
items charged by the contractor were not cor- the case for relief is not substantially made out. was the machinery completed within the time rect and onght not to be allowed.
Mr. CLARK. I desire to ask the Senator specified, but many months were required on Mr. CLARK. Only as to extra work, as I | whether, supposing more time was necessary, the part of all these contractors to complete | understand.
the man who got out his work in six months that machinery, shows that there was a mis
Mr. HENDRICKS. On the next page an was not more deserving than the man who got take on the part of the Department, and on
explanation is made by the contractor, so as it out in twelve months. the part of all these contractors, too, in regard to make that right.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I should say so. to the time necessary for the construction
Mr. CLARK. It did not affect the amount Mr. CLARK. Then what is the propriety of the machinery. I take that as a general of the bills at all.
of putting them all at twelve per cent.? proposition, that there was a mutual mistake,
Mr. HENDRICKS. No, sir; it does not Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, there is and that mutual mistake, causing the work affect the amount of the bills; but here is the not any very
eat difference in the time that to run into months when labor and material explanation, and I will read just what the con- was occupied in the completion of this mawere much advanced, accounts for the loss tractor said:
chinery. sustained by these parties. I submit to Sena- “Appeared before the board F. Z. Tucker, con- Mr. CLARK. One hundred days in some. tors, are not contractors oftentimes relieved tractor for the double-endor gunboat Mendota, with
Mr. HENDRICKS. No, I think not. There upon grounds of mistake, in equity? Even in
explanations and corrections of the bills of cost of
was one case where the machinery was furnished the courts, between man and man, if there is which corrections do not affect the total amount of for one vessel as early as September, 1863. I a mutual mistake, equity will correct that misbills previously submitted."
noticed that as I was reading over the report; take. Whether equity between man and man That is all there is upon that subject. and in some cases the machinery was not finin respect to a question like this would relieve, I understood the Senator to say that when ished until the spring of 1864. I will not say; whether this would be a precise the contracts for these twenty-two engines and Mr. CLARK. A difference of six months, case for the interference of a court of chancery, boilers were made the weight of the machinery Mr. HENDRICKS. Yes, sir ; but I recol I will not say; but as between the citizen and was ascertained and known to the parties. If lect of but one case in which the machinery the Government, I do claim that there being he stated that he was mistaken.
was finished as early as September, 1863. That a great mistake in regard to the time necessary Mr. CLARK. Oh, no.
same house got out another engine and boiler for the construction of this machinery, it is Mr. HENDRICKS. I understand him now in November, 1863; but most of this machinsuch a mistake as appeals to the conscience to say that he did not so state.
ery was finished during the winter of 1863-64. and sense of equity and right of the Govern- Mr. CLARK. I did not state the weight. Now, I repeat to the Senate, that although ment. That proposition that all these parties I said I supposed, when the contract was re- there is much force in the argument of the were mistaken in regard to the time, that the duced to writing, they understood what they Senator, when it is considered that the DeDepartment itself was mistaken in regard to were contracting for.
partment and the contractors made a mutual the time, and the further fact that this was Mr. HENDRICKS. The weight of the ma- mistake in regard to the time necessary for the
completion of this machinery; when the Sen- || GRIMES] read here the other day the criticisms || indelibly upon the tablets of our memory; and
Sir, this Government acted far more magnanthey did prosecute the work, because there is The misfortune that the Senator from New || imously than its distinguished advocate from no complaint on the part of the Government || Hampshire seems to be laboring under is, New Hampshire now does. They did not hang that they did not, and in some cases Congress that nobody has examined this case but him, upon time. They were glad to get these ships relieved them and in some cases the Depart. || and because he found a wrong name in one whenever they came. They would have been ment relieved them in regard to the time; when place he turned round with quite a theatrical || glad to get them sooner, and they would have it is shown that the Department thought they 1 air of triumph, as much as to say, “I would taken them later had they come. My friend, were finished as soon as was possible in one impeach not only the intelligence but the with a great deal of assurance of manner at case-when all this is considered, and these || integrity of the committee to which this sub- || least, and I presume he felt so from the strength men have done good work at as early a day as ject was referred," and with an air of triumph of his argument, asks us, would an individual possible, will not Congress relieve them from he attempted to render us some aid. The fact do it? I answer yes, if the individual's neces. the great loss which resulted from these mis- appeared that the committee jointly happened || sities were as great as the necessities of this takes mutual between the contractors and the to be as wise as the Senator separately, and country, and he would have been glad to do it. Department? It seems to me, notwithstanding | found out the same thing that he found from An individual who will stand upon the bond the critical argument made by the Senator from examining the report. I congratulate the com- when a man has given him a superior article, New Hampshire, that there ought to be relief. mittee jointly that they were able to do what and heavier than he contracted for, and say Mr. President, I now submit the case so far the Senator could do alone!
“I will take it, because it is so nominated in as I am concerned, to the sense of justice of My friend from New Hampshire has argued the bond," is not an honest man; and, sir, you the Senate.
this case as a very critical lawyer, and it would not trust him, nor would the Senator Mr. CLARK. I have but a word or two seemed to me that he fell into the error of from New Hampshire trust him; and he could in reply, and it is not so much in reply as it is supposing that he was defending some one in not get trusted in a country store in the State in aid of a suggestion or two made by the Sen- New Hampshire, or somewhere else, against of New Hampshire. ator from Indiana. I think, taking the Senator's a legal claim made to recover in these several I was utterly surprised at the pertinacity statement to be entirely true, it shows con
Sir, the committee that made this with which the Senator from New Hampshire clusively that this kind of legislation that we report placed the report upon no such foun- adhered to this question of time. Sir, the are attempting here now is not the proper, in- dation. They have reported that these ships | truth is this Government “ took no note of telligent legislation that we ought to have. honestly cost these people, from the evidence time save by its loss” during this struggle. Now, supposing these engines to have been that satisfied the commission appointed by the It was all time and no time with them. For heavier than any of the contractors contem- Government itself, so many dollars and so four years there has been no note of time save plated, how much heavier were they? Does many cents. The appeal is not in the charac
in preparation for bloody strife. I repeat again, the Senator know, except in one case where a ter of a legal claim, but it is an appeal of hon- I was utterly surprised to hear the distinguished person says that the one which he built was so est men that have labored honestly, that have Senator from New Hampshire, who is generheavy? Before we can legislate intelligently | not let their furnaces go unheated, whose ham- || ally so generous, and takes such enlarged views we ought to have from the Department the mers have been heard night and day; and for of things, nail his objection to this measure on weight of these engines, if the contractors what? To aid this Government in construct- the question of time. Why did he do it? To complain of that, and know how much heavier | ing a navy that is to-day its proudest boast. show that this excess of cost arose from the they were.
My friend from New Hampshire seems to delay of these contractors. Is there a particle Mr. HENDRICKS. They were all of one hang upon this question of time': as though of evidence of that sort in this case?" Is not style.
it was a very important thing. “It is so nom- the contrary apparent throughout, that they Mr. CLARK. I understand that some of inated in the bond," says the Senator from strained every nerve to complete these vessels these people do not complain of that. Many New Hampshire. He returns to the bond. He in time? They had two controlling motives to of them do not complain that they were de- argues well if this Government turns Shylock; | do it: first, in order to help to rescue the Gov. ceived in the weight; some do. If we could || but he does not argue well when an appeal is ernment they loved from its peril; and next, bave the weight of these engines we could then made to the sense of justice of this Govern- because every day told them prices were increasknow if that was a matter of equity, how much ment. Time, sir! It is patent to everybody || ing enormously; and yet my friend says they equity there was in the case.
that time in regard to these Government con- must suffer the entire loss occasioned by this Taking the matter of time, the Senator says tracts has not been observed by any contractor. delay. that the Department was satisfied the time was The whole country was in a state of wild con- Now, Mr. President, I desire to make two or not long enough. Do we know how much time fusion. Time! Why, sir, the time was set three statements that are matters of history, the Department thought was long enough? Do for McClellan to go into Richmond, when he and my friend will find them to be so if he goes we know how far the Department relieved them marched out with the proudest army that ever to the Department. I have but one single in regard to the time? We should have the went from here; but he did not get there at acquaintance in this whole lot of contractors, information from the Department in all these all. The time was set for peace, by the distin- but I have taken occasion to look a little into cases before we can legislate intelligently. It | guished Secretary of State, in sixty days after the record. Mr. Quintard has built ten ships is to this blind method of legislation that I so the troubles commenced; and yet the contro- for this Government. much object. It may be true, as I stated before, versy lasted four long years. So far as that Mr. CLARK. Thirteen. that the Government will have to pay as much || distinguished officer of the Government could Mr. NYE. No, sir. in the end as this twelve per cent. would be; fix the time, he fixed it; but instead of sixty Mr. CLARK. He told me so. but I do not like this method of legislation. I we had more than fourteen hundred days of Mr. NYE. I guess you are mistaken, bewant the people who are deserving of it to bloody strife.
cause he gave me the names.
Mr. NYE. I have only two or three sen- vessels. What is the fact? The fact is, that Mr. NYE. Well, all the better, as I am so