Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

telegraph companies more than is held in common by other persons. I use them sometimes as others do. But everybody is interested in cheapening the cost of telegrams. It is proposed by some that the Government shall take charge of the telegraph lines of the country and make them a part of the postal system of the Government. Of course you would not tax telegraphing should that be done. If you determine to tax it, then you must let it remain where it now is, under the control of private enterprise. If you tax telegraph companies, you will simply add to the prices which will be charged for telegrams. If the chairman or any other member of the Committee of Ways and Means can give any reason why we should make a distinction in this respect between telegraph companies and express companies, I would like to hear it.

Mr. BENJAMIN. I would inquire of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FARNSWORTH] if the telegraph line is the poor man's mail route?

Mr. FARNSWORTH. It ought to be, but it never will be while you impose a tax of three per cent. upon it.

Mr. SCHENCK. I will tell the gentleman why it is proposed to make the difference he speaks of. As the law is now each of these classes of companies is charged three per cent. upon its gross receipts. In this bill they are both embraced in one section. The express companies, through their representatives, have appeared before the Committee of Ways and Means, exhibited statistics, and made statements. After a revision of the whole subject, and taking into consideration the amount of capital employed, the amount of their losses and their profits, and their ability to bear a burden of this kind, the committee came to the conclusion that it was right and proper and just to put the tax upon express companies down to two and a half per cent. But nobody

has undertaken to show to the committee that there was any reason for reducing the present tax upon the telegraph companies. The committee, from their knowledge on this subject, were incline.t to believe that the tax ought to be left where it is. If the gentleman wants to know my own particular reasons for coming to that conclusion, I can tell him. The express companies cannot be started in opposition to each other without an enormous amount of outlay, while it costs comparatively little to build a few miles of telegraph. Thus competition springs up from time to time between different telegraph companies. Some fail in their struggles to secure a profitable existence while others succeed. But as a general rule the profits from telegraphs have been large in proportion to the cost of establishing them. They have, in general, paid well. My friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. CoVODE] says that he has not found it so in his experience; but I know that in cases of which I have some personal knowledge the stock of telegraph companies has been extremely profitable. I am told that the Western Union Telegraph Company has not realized any considerable profits; but perhaps it has not been sufficiently long established. It must, however, be considered that one cannot tell from the returns of these companies whether they are or are not making profits. There are combinations made; there are processes called || waterings of stock, expansions of stock, &c., by which companies, upon the statistical tables presented, may appear not to be making profits for their stockholders, when, in fact, the enterprise is yielding large returns for the investment. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. CoVODE.]

Mr. COVODE. Mr. Chairman, I desire that the tax on telegraph companies shall be put down to the same rate as that on express companies. I know it to be a fact that the express companies are making larger dividends than the telegraph companies. I happen to be familiar with this question. I have money invested in both classes of companies; and from the one I get dividends, while from the other I get none.

I have had $10,000 invested in telegraph company stock for a long time, and no dividends whatever have been declared. I do not see why we should impose less taxation on companies that declare dividends than on those that do not. It is unfair and unjust. I only ask that the tax on the telegraph companies shall be made the same as that on the express companies.

[Here the hammer fell.]

The question being taken on Mr. FARNSWORTH'S amendment to the amendment of Mr. SCHENCK, it was not agreed to; there beingayes thirteen, noes not counted.

Mr. SCHENCK's amendment was agreed to. Mr. SCHENCK. I move that the committee rise.

The motion was agreed to.

So the committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. POMEROY re

ported that the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had had under considparticularly the special order, being the bill eration the state of the Union generally, and (H. R. No. 1060) to reduce into one act and to amend the laws relating to internal taxes, and had come to no resolution thereon.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message from the Senate, by Mr. GORHAM, its Secretary, announced that the Senate had passed bills of the following titles, in which the concurrence of the House was requested:

An act (S. No. 534) relating to contested elections in the city of Washington, District of Columbia; and

An act (S. No. 509) in addition to an act passed March 26, 1864, entitled "An act in addition to an act entitled 'An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States.'"'

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Leave of absence was granted to Mr. WIN; DOM for one week, and Mr. BROMWELL for ten days.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. HOLMAN. adjourn.

Mr. SCHENCK.

I move that the House

I believe the order was by unanimous consent that the House continue in session till five o'clock. A bill has just come from the Senate that it is desirable to act upon.

The SPEAKER. That was the order of the House.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I move to proceed to business on the Speaker's table.

The SPEAKER. If that is done the bills must be taken up in their regular order and disposed of.

Mr. HOLMAN. I hope the motion will not prevail.

On the question of proceeding to business on the Speaker's table, there were-ayes 44, noes 28; no quorum voting.

Tellers were ordered; and the Chair appointed Messrs. INGERSOLL and HOLMAN.

Mr. INGERSOLL. If this motion prevails, will it be in order to set aside bills in order to reach any special one?

The SPEAKER. They must be acted on or referred in their order.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I move that the House adjourn.

The SPEAKER. That motion is not yet in order.

Mr. BLAINE. Will it be in order to regard it as five o'clock now by unanimous consent? The SPEAKER. It would be.

Mr. BLAINE. I think we can so regard it. Mr. SCHENCK. It will be five o'clock before a count is had.

The SPEAKER. If the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means makes no objection it can be so regarded.

Mr. SCHENCK. I make none. The SPEAKER. Then the House stands adjourned till Monday at twelve o'clock. The House accordingly (at four o'clock and fifty-nine minutes) adjourned.

PETITIONS.

The following petitions were presented under . the rule, and referred to the appropriate committees:

By Mr. BOUTWELL: The petition of Joseph R. Hayes, and 92 others, of Lowell, Massachusetts, in reference to the tax on cigars.

Also, a memorial from E. R. Knorr, in ref erence to ocean charts.

By Mr. ELIOT: The petition of the Benev olent Homestead and Relief Society of Savannah, Georgia, praying for relief.

Also, the petition of Atlantic Insurance Company and others, of New York, praying for the erection of a breakwater at the entrance of Cuttyhunk harbor.

By Mr. FIELDS: The petition of Jefferson P. Clyde and 86 others, asking a reduction in the expenses of the military, naval, and civil service of the United States.

IN SENATE.

MONDAY, June 15, 1868.

Prayer by Rev. A. D. GILLETTE, D. D., of Washington.

On motion of Mr. WILSON, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of Saturday last was dispensed with.

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore presented two petitions of citizens of Ohio, praying the introduction of hand-looms and such material

among the Indians as will attract their attention and lead them to fabricate their own garments; which was referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

He also presented a memorial of E. B. Ward, praying a change in the inode of appointments and removals and in the qualifications of all officers who are selected to execute the laws for the collection or disbursement of moneys belonging to the United States; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

He also presented a petition of Gabriel M. Thomas, of South Carolina, praying a removal of the civil disabilities imposed on him by act of Congress; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. WILSON presented a petition of citi zens of Vermont, praying a repeal of the charter granted to the Masonic Hall Association of Washington, District of Columbia; which was referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

Mr. SHERMAN presented the memorial of A. D. Breed, of Cincinnati, Ohio, praying for confirmation of the land grant of June 3, 1856, to the Selma, Rome, and Dalton Railroad Company, and extension of the time for completing the road and for a change of location; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

PAPERS WITHDRAWN.

On motion of Mr. HOWE, it was

Ordered, That D. A. Daniels have leave to withdraw his petition from the files of the Senate, and that it be referred to the Committee on Claims.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.

Mr. VAN WINKLE, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred a petition of citizens of New York, praying that a pension be granted to Hannah Cook, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill (S. No. 545) granting a pension to Hannah Cook. The bill was read and passed to a second reading, and the report was ordered to be printed.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of Jane McMurray, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill (S. No. 546) for the relief of Jane McMurray. The bill was read and passed to a second reading, and the report was ordered to be printed.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of John Sheets, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill (S. No. 547) granting a pension to John Sheets. The bill was read and passed to a second reading, and the report was ordered to be printed.

He also, from the same committee, to whom

was referred the petition of Almanda Stackhouse, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill (S. No. 548) granting a pension to Almanda Stackhouse and the children of Parks J. Stackhouse, deceased. The bill was read and passed to a second reading, and the report was ordered to be printed.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of Catharina Eckhardt, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill (S. No. 549) granting an increase of pension to Catharina Eckhardt.

The bill was read and passed to a second reading, and the report was ordered to be printed.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 1010) relating to pensions, reported it with amendments.

Mr. HENDRICKS, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 486) to facilitate the settlement of certain prize cases in the southern district of Florida, reported it without amendment, and submitted a report; which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. WILLIAMS, from the Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 1157) to cede to the State of Ohio the unsold lands in the Virginia military district in said State, reported it without amend

ment.

Mr. SUMNER, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported a bill (S. No. 551) to carry into effect the two several decrees of the district court of the United States for the district of Louisiana in the cases of the British vessels Volant and Science; which was read, and passed to a second reading.

He also presented a letter from the Secretary of State, addressed to the Committee on Foreign Relations, in relation to the cases of the British vessels Volant and Science; which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. HOWE, from the Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Robert Ford, submitted a report, accompanied by a bill (S. No. 550) for the relief of Robert Ford. The bill was read, passed to a second reading, and the report was ordered to be printed.

Mr. POMEROY, from the Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. No. 554) making a grant of land to the State of Minnesota to aid in the improvement of the navigation of the Mississippi river, reported it with an amendment.

Mr. WILSON, from the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 410) making appropriations for the repair, preservation, and construction of certain public works in the Territory of Idaho, and for other purposes, asked to be discharged from its further consideration, and that it be referred to the Committee on Appropriations; which was agreed to.

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 355) authorizing the construction of a bridge across the Missouri river upon the military reservation at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, reported it with amendments.

Mr. THAYER, from the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 371) relative to the military reservation at Fort Dalles, in Oregon, reported it without amendment.

Mr. POMEROY, from the Committee on Public Lands, reported an amendment intended to be proposed to the bill (H. R. No. 267) to declare forfeited to the United States certain lands granted to aid in the construction of railroads in the States of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida, and for other purposes; which was ordered to be printed, and recommitted to the Committee on Public Lands.

SCHOOL LOT IN BURLINGTON, IOWA. Mr. POMEROY. The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 469) confirming the title to a tract of land in Burlington, Iowa, have had the same under consideration, and directed me to report it

back without amendment, and recommend its passage.

Mr. HARLAN. If there is no objection, I || should be very glad to have that bill taken up and acted upon now. I do not think there will be one Senator who will oppose. It is a very small matter.

Mr. POMEROY. It is merely a burying lot in the city of Burlington, Iowa, that was reserved from sale by the United States for that purpose, but which they have now abandoned.

Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill. It proposes to confirm and vest all the title of the United States in and to a certain tract of land in the city of Burlington, Des Moines county, in the State of Iowa, described as being west of lot No. 978 in that city, south of Valley street, west of Boundary street, and north of Market street, and which was originally reserved from sale by the United States and dedicated to public burial purposes, in the "Independent School District " of that city, to be forever dedicated to and used by the school district for public school purposes and for no other use or purpose what

ever.

The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. FOWLER asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 552) to provide for the better security of life on board of steamboats and steamships and other vessels; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. NYE asked, and by unanimous consent, obtained, leave to introduce a joint resolution (S. R. No. 145) in relation to the coast defense; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the joint Committee on Ordnance.

REFUNDING OF DUTIES.

Mr. MORGAN. I move to take up for consideration Senate bill No. 448, for the return of certain duties erroneously exacted.

The motion was agreed to; and the bill (S. No. 448) to refund duties erroneously exacted in certain cases was read the second time, and considered as in Committee of the Whole. It proposes to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to refund to importers in the city of New York, in moneys receivable for duties, the excess of duties exacted and paid upon importations and merchandise subject to specific duties, made subsequent to the passage of the tariff act of the 2d of March, 1861, and prior to the passage of the act of the 14th of July, 1862, caused by the non-allowance by the collector of the port of New York for draft upon such importations, as provided by sections fifty-eight and fifty-nine of the act to regulate the collection of duties on imports and tonnage, approved March 2, 1799.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I should like some explanation of that bill. I do not understand what it is.

Mr. MORGAN. The act of March 2, 1861, provided for the collection of specific duties. A circular from the honorable Secretary of the Treasury, issued to collectors of customs, dated March 21, 1861, directed allowances for tare, draft, &c., to be made in accordance with sections fifty-eight and fifty-nine of the general collection act of 1799, which were again brought into operation. Allowances for tare and draft were made in the ports of Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and other ports throughout the United States, under the act of 1861 and under the Treasury circular referred to, in accordance with the uniform practice of the Government under all previous specific tariff acts; but the collector of customs at the port of New York did not make any allowance for draft in cases where tare was allowed, declaring that both allowances could not be made on the same article; in other words, that tare only should be allowed on merchandise imported in packages, and draft only in cases of merchandise imported in bulk. In order to test the point

before the courts some importers of New York protested, and in the case of Napier vs. Hiram Barney the court held that the importer was entitled to the allowance of both tare and draft under the acts of 1799 and 1861. The Secretary of the Treasury having acquiesced in the decision of the courts, the duties exacted contrary thereto and paid under protest were refunded to the importers. These petitioners ask that in cases where protests were not made the same allowance be made to them as where' th there was protest. I have a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject, which I will read :

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 4, 1868. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note dated the 24th ultimo, submitting a letter of Mr. Moses II. Grianell, of New York, addressed to you under date of February 13, 1868, (which letter is herewith respectfully returned) relative to securing the enactment by Congress of a resolution authorizing the return of duties exacted at the port of New York in alleged violation of law.

The excess of duties referred to in the communication of Mr. Grinnell was exacted by reason of nonallowance for "draft," as prescribed by the fiftyeighth section of the general collection act of 1799, on articles paying specific duties.

The act of March 2, 1861, provided for the collection of specific duties; and Treasury circular of March 21, 1861, directed that allowances for tare, draft, &c., were to be made in accordance with sections fiftyeight and fifty-nine of the act of 1799, which were again brought into operation.

But in view of Treasury circular dated March 24, 1847, directing that draft and tare should not be allowed on the same article, the former applying to merchandise in bulk and the latter to goods in packages, draft was not allowed at the port of New York on goods in packages. It was, however, allowed on such goods at the ports of Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.

In order to test the point before the courts, some importers protested at the port of New York; and, in the case of Napier vs. Barney, the court held that the importer was entitled to both draft and tare under the acts of 1799 and 1861.

The Department having acquiesced in this decision, the duties exacted contrary thereto and paid under protest were refunded to the several importers. But no authority existed to refund to those who had not paid under protest; and it is for the relief of the latter class, I understand, that the resolution above referred to is desired.

The case may be considered an exceptional one. in view of the fact that draft was allowed at the ports of Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and was not allowed at New York. This was in effect a violation of the clause in the Constitution (article one, section seven,) which declares that "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Under these circumstances, I am of opinion that the proposed legislation would be eminently proper. I am, very respectfully,

Hon. EDWIN D. MORGAN,

H. McCULLOCH, Secretary of the Treasury.

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

I have here, also, the circular of Mr. Secretary Chase, dated March 21, 1861, in which it is stated:

"That in allowances on account of tax, draft, &c., on goods subject to specific duty under the new tariff, officers of the customs will be governed by the provisions of the fifty-eighth and fifty-ninth sections of the general collection act of March 2, 1799, which. are again brought into operation."

This bill and these papers were before the Committee on Finance, and they thought the claim was entirely just, and they have unanimously reported in favor of the bill. If necessary a limit can be fixed on the amount to be paid, which I will propose if it is deemed needful.

The bill was reported to the Senate.

Mr. MORGAN. It is supposed that the amount of duties to be refunded is not far from $50,000, but so as to have the amount large enough to cover all demands I will offer this amendment:

And the sum of $60,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated out of any moneys not otherwise appropriated, to carry into effect the objects of this act.

It is not known exactly what the sum is, but perhaps it is well enough to make the appropriation $60,000.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CONNESS. I would inquire of the Senator who has charge of this bill whether there is any correction necessary to be made touching the collection of duties in any other ports; whether New York is the only place in which those collections were made illegally and

improperly; whether the committee inquired as to that?

Mr. MORGAN. It would appear that the Treasury circular issued in 1861 was carried into effect in all the other ports of the country. Mr. Barney was the only collector who objected.

Mr. CONNESS. That appears by the investigation?

Mr. MORGAN. Yes, sir; that the investigation.

the same force and effect as any other judgment of the Court of Claims.

Mr. DRAKE. I have simply to say, sir, unless some Senator calls for information with regard to this resolution, that the whole thing was incidentally discussed the other day in connection with the bill which was urged by the Senator from Indiana [Mr. HENDRICKS] to pay certain sums of money to certain contractIf there is any point on which any Senator desires information to show the justice of allowing the men concerned in the construction of these vessels to go into the Court of Claims and establish their claim under the terms of the act of March 2, 1867, I am ready to give that information.

ors. appears by

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.

CONTRACTORS FOR IRON-CLADS.

Mr. DRAKE. I move that the Senate take up the joint resolution (S. R. No. 100) for the relief of certain contractors for the construction of vessels of war and steam machinery.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore put the question on the motion; but before announcing the result,

Mr. STEWART. That resolution will certainly lead to discussion, and I desire to call up to-day, and I should like to do it in the morning hour, a bill to remove political disabilities.

Mr. DRAKE. I hope the Senator will allow me to call this resolution to come up now.

Mr. STEWART. Let me make a single remark. It is necessary that the bill to which I refer should be considered to-day, in order that the State governments may go into operation. It will relieve a large number of persons who have been elected to office, and it is very important that the bill should be passed to-day.

Mr. DRAKE. Mr. President, did the Senate agree to take up the joint resolution I mentioned or not?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is the question pending now.

Mr. DRAKE. I appeal to the Senator from Nevada in this matter. I do not see that there is any necessity for discussion over this resolution. The whole matter has been extensively discussed in connection with the bill that was passed the other day. I think the Senate can come to a vote upon it immediately without debate; and as I have never asked the Senate before, I believe, to take up any matter in the morning hour I should be very glad to be gratified in this instance.

Mr. STEWART. The taking up of the bill I have mentioned is no particular gratification to me. It is a matter of public business which must be done; but I withdraw my opposition and am willing that the resolution of the Senator should come up.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The ques tion is on taking up the joint resolution for consideration:

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the joint resolution (S. R. No. 100) for the relief of certain contractors for the construction of vessels of war and steam machinery.

The preamble recites that Congress, by an act passed on the 2d of March, 1867, provided for the investigation by the Secretary of the Navy of the claims of all the contractors for building vessels of war and steam machinery, and that pursuant to that act the Secretary of the Navy appointed anaval board for the invest. igation of the claims in question, and that it appears that the provisions of said act have not been fully conformed to in the findings of the board; and Congress having neither the time nor means for the careful legal investigation which the importance of the subject demands, to relieve it from the further consideration of the subject, and as a final settlement of the claims of the contractors, the resolution provides the claims for building vessels of war and steam machinery, referred to in the act entitled "An act for the relief of certain contractors," &c., approved March 2, 1867, be referred to the Court of Claims, which is hereby vested with jurisdiction under that act, whose duty it shall be to investigate and determine || the claims of the several petitioners upon the principles of that act, and its finding is to have

Mr. WILLIAMS. I should like to ask the Senator if he does not propose by this resolution to refer to the Court of Claims such claims as were submitted to and rejected by this board of commissioners. Is not that the fact?

Mr. DRAKE. Mr. President, the act of March 2, 1867, entitled "An act for the relief of certain contractors for the construction of vessels of war and steam machinery," authorized the Secretary of the Navy "to investigate the claims of all contractors for building ves sels of war and steam machinery for the same under contracts made after the 1st day of May, 1861, and prior to the 1st day of January, 1864," which investigation was to be made upon a basis specified in that act.

Mr. WILSON. What was the basis? Mr. DRAKE. It was as follows: "He shall ascertain the additional cost which was necessarily incurred by each contractor in the completion of his work by reason of any changes or alterations in the plans and specifications required, and delays in the prosecution of the work occasioned by the Government, which were not provided for in the original contract; but no allowance for any advance in the price of labor or material shall be considered unless such advance occurred during the prolonged time for completing the work rendered necessary by the delay resulting from the action of the Government aforesaid, and then only when such advance could not have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary prudence and diligence on the part of the contractor, and from such additional cost, to be ascertained as aforesaid, there shall be deducted such sum as may have been paid each contractor for any reason heretofore over and above the contract price, and shall report to Congress a tabular statement of each case, which shall contain the name of the contractor, a description of the work, the contract price, the whole increased cost of the work over the contract price, and the amount of such increased cost caused by the delay and action of the Government as aforesaid, and the amount already paid the contractor over and above the contract price."

The Navy Department paid them upward of three hundred and twenty-two thousand dollars, and this board, though they stand upon the very same footing as the others, the very terms of the contract being identical, the alterations identical, the delays identical, allow them not one cent though they are five hundred and thirty-three thousand dollars nearly out of pocket. So in the case of the Manayunk, where the whole increased cost was nearly three hundred and forty thousand dollars, one hundred and sixty-six thousand and some odd hundred dollars were allowed them by the Department, nothing allowed them by this board at all, and they are one hundred and seventy-two thousand dollars and upward out of pocket. So in the case of the Tippecanoe, Miles Greenwood, on the same facts, is one hundred and seventysix thousand dollars and upward out of pocket. So in the case of the Etlah, the builders are upward of one hundred and fifty-six thousand dollars out of pocket.

The fact is that this board allowed an account of five of these vessels built in the eastern States the amounts specified in the bill that was passed here the other day, and on the other four of the nine built in the western States they allowed not one single cent; and yet the circumstances under which they were built were precisely the same, the contract the same, the specifications the same, the delays on the part of the Government the same, the difference in the price of gold during the period of building the same! Still this board allowed nothing.

Now, then, the simple request here is "Let us go into the Court of Claims: we had no clear showing before that commission; we sent in our request; they never gave us an opportunity to go before them; or at least they never asked of us any explanation; they never gave us an opportunity to come in there and show them how it was that we were damaged. Let us go before the Court of Claims, not for a general demand upon the Government, but let us go there upon the very specific terms of the act of March, 1867, and if we cannot there show a case whereby we are entitled to relief more than this board granted us then let us be turned out. We know that we are to go there and to stay there years before we get this money or any part of it, before we can get any allowance." We know, as I do know and state to the Senate, the fact that some of those Now, Mr. President, I will state in a few concerns were bankrupted by these contracts; words exactly how this matter stands. There and all that they ask is for the poor privilege are quite a number of vessels concerning which of going into the Court of Claims and showing the claims of the contractors were submitted; their whole case there; and if, under the terms but I take the cases of nine of them, all of of the act of March 2, 1867, they are entitled one class, all built under precisely the same to anything, let the court award it, and if they contract, all to be built for the same sum of are not, let the court say they are not, and there money, and all of them costing very largely is the end of it. That is all that is asked. I, above what the contract price was. For insir, appeal to the Senate on behalf of worthy stance, here are three together built by the men who have actually been ruined, some of firm of Secor & Co. and the firm of Perrine, them, by this whole transaction; and if it is Secor & Co., to wit: the Manhattan, the Te not a case where they can be allowed to go cumseh, and the Mahopac. They cost over there and show themselves entitled under this and above the contract price $1,236,101 22. act of March 2, 1867, not otherwise, to some The Navy Department paid over and above additional compensation, then of course the the contract price $521,195 58, leaving a bal- Government will suffer naught by it. ance of excess over the contract price and that amount of $714,905 64. This board that was organized by the Secretary of the Navy under the act of March 2, 1867, allowed to those individuals $115,539 01, leaving unprovided for $599,366 63. That is one case.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not know that I-fully understand the Senator. Was this $115,000 allowed by the board in addition to the $500,000 paid?

Mr. DRAKE. Yes, sir; that was in addition; and yet notwithstanding all that the Navy Department paid them was above the contract price, and notwithstanding the $115,000 allowed by the board, these individuals have nearly $600,000 of excess of cost over the contract price for which there is no provision.

Now, pass on to the Oneota and the Catawba, built by another concern. Upon these two vessels the whole increased cost was upward of six hundred and sixty-five thousand dollars.

Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. President, I do not know the facts in regard to the contractors for these vessels, but I believe the vessels were iron-clads of a light draft, which were ordered during the war. I remember that the Committee on the Conduct of the War was directed by the Senate to investigate into the condition of those iron-clads, and the Presiding Officer and myself were on a sub-committee that did investigate their condition. We went to Boston and Brooklyn and examined them, and we found that of the twenty there was not one that would float, but they would all go to the bottom as quick as iron not worked into vessels.

Mr. DRAKE. Will the gentleman be so good as to state if that was the case with any of the eight named on the margin of this paper? Mr. CHANDLER. I do not remember. Mr. DRAKE. Very well; I hope the gentleman will be specific.

Mr. CHANDLER. In that case the Navy

Department, finding that they had committed a blunder, had built some twenty iron-clads at a cost of many millions of dollars which would not float, undertook to reconstruct them, make them over, turn them into torpedo boats or something of that kind. After they had been reconstructed, made over, and turned into torpedo boats at a vast expense, they were not half as good as they were when they would go to the bottom direct.

Now, sir, I do not know whether these are among those vessels or not; but after all, that should have no effect upon the claims of the contractors, though it does reflect upon the Navy Department. They had no right to build twenty vessels that would go to the bottom when their armament was on board, and then they had no right to undertake to turn them into torpedo boats, at a vast expenditure, and make them worse than they were when they would go to the bottom. Still the contractors undoubtedly obeyed the directions of the Navy Department, and are entitled to compensation. I have nothing to say with regard to the merit of these contractors, but I have something to say with regard to the merits of the Navy Department.

allowed on behalf of six of them certain sums
of money, and it rejected all the rest of them;
and that, too, when the circumstances con-
nected with the building of the whole of them
were absolutely almost identical. And it is a
very singular feature of this case that the five
vessels of one particular class, of which there
were nine, that were selected for the granting
of this aid were built in eastern ports, and the
four where the aid was denied were built in
western ports. It may have been an accident,
but it is a very significant accident. These
vessels were all built under the same circum-
stances, that the specifications for the construc-
tion of them were withheld for long periods, in
the case of the nine vessels of the same class for
two years from the time when they ought to
have been furnished. During that time gold
went up from 118 to 282, and was fluctuating
between 150 and 282 the most of the time.
Every single article that entered into their con-
struction was of course greatly increased, the
delays caused by the Government itself being
the cause of loss by that increase of price.

Now, I beg to submit, in opposition to the
remarks of the Senator from New Jersey, that
the report bears upon its very face the want of
complete and thorough investigation. Why
should there be six vessels selected out of
thirty-one, and twenty-five built under the
same circumstances completely rejected? That
shows that there was not sufficient examination.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. May I ask my friend a question? Does it appear anywhere that the circumstances of the twenty-five vessels were like those of the six? I think with as much propriety you might say that if an arbitration allowed carpenters and architects an extra price for building six houses, therefore they must allow the same advance on any other twenty-four houses that might be built in the course of the year.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. President, I was one of the members of the Committee on Naval Affairs who dissented from this report. The chairman, the Senator from Iowa, [Mr. GRIMES,] and myself did not recommend that this joint resolution should pass. I understand the case to be simply this: the contract price for these vessels was, in round numbers, $14,000.000. By reason of delay and alterations the contractors claimed to be paid $10,000,000 more. The Department allowed and paid them $5,000,000 of those $10,000,000. Then Congress passed the act of 2d of March, 1867, which appointed a commission and authorized that commission to find out what more was due them; and that commission did find Mr. DRAKE. Asto nine of them I can state out, and reported that $157,000 more were due; the facts to be these, and they are the great points not $5,000,000, but $157,000; and the other in this investigation. I stated them the other day we passed a bill appropriating that money, day: that the contract called for the delivery so that it may be paid. Now they ask for lib. of the specifications to the contractors at the erty to go into the Court of Claims to have the time of the signing of the contract; that none whole subject again investigated. My objection of them were delivered until twenty-eight days to that is that there is no evidence whatever afterward, and that from that time on for two before Congress that the finding of the com- years the complete specifications were not demission was not perfectly accurate and just;livered, though it is a fact that the contract and until there is some such evidence I think called for the construction of the vessels within it ought to be final. the period of six months. And so during all that long time of the high rate of gold these contractors had to go on and construct that work, with the prices of everything doubled, trebled, and quadrupled, by reason of the rise in the price of gold.

Again, if we are determined that no adjudication shall stand, if we set aside every finding that is made by commission and by the Department, we finally shall get a sum of money that will be satisfactory to the claimants, and such as Congress wants to pay, I suppose.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I should like to ask the Senator if this $5,000,000 that was paid to these men in the first instance was ascertained by a commission?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. No; that was paid by the Department.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Without any examination by a commission?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Without a commission being appointed; then a commission was appointed.

If there is to be a review and another adjudication of this subject I think it ought to be by a commission, and not by the Court of Claims, for I do not see how the Government can defend itself, how it can be prepared to bring out the truth there. All these contractors can go to the Court of Claims with their books and their agents and state what they believe to be their view of the case, while the solicitor and the Government will be without means of meeting these allegations, when, if we have a commission, they can without being tied down by the rules of evidence examine the whole subject themselves and come to a just conclusion. But I do not see upon what is based the application to have another hearing until it appears that there is something erroneous in the finding of the commission.

Mr. DRAKE. That commission had before it the cases of thirty-one different vessels. It

Mr. NYE. I should like to ask the honor. able Senator a question. I think he is laboring under a slight mistake in regard to the character of that report. The board reported simply upon five, but I do not understand that they reported adversely on the others.

Mr. DRAKE. They simply set it down in the table "none," "none," &c. That is all.

Mr. NYE. Not an adverse report. If the Senator will turn to the report made two years ago upon the same subject he will find that these vessels were reported upon for various

amounts.

Mr. DRAKE. If it be not the will of the Senate that under the circumstances these contractors, who are ruined by these contracts unless they can get some relief, should have the poor privilege of going into the Court of Claims, and there asking the court to give them such relief merely, simply, as the Government has said it is willing they should have under the act of March 2, 1867, then I have done my duty to them, and I have nothing further to

say.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Mr. President, I felt it to be my duty to vote in committee for this joint resolution, and I think I am authorized in supporting it in the Senate. I do not think the facts stated by the Senator from New Jersey are conclusive against these parties. In the first place, some three years ago the Sen|| ate, then in executive session, passed a reso

lution providing for the appointment of a board to ascertain the losses sustained by these contractors. That board was organized according to that resolution, and reported the losses sustained by the contractors, after five months of session, hearing evidence upon the subject, and requiring each contractor to make an exact statement of every expenditure in the building of each vessel. That report, with the evidence to a considerable extent, came before the Com mittee on Naval Affairs, and it became my duty to examine it. I was satisfied that these parties had sustained loss to a large amount. The loss amounted very nearly to two million dollars, and I thought that a fair percentage of the loss ought at least to be paid, and I advocated such a bill, and it passed the Sen

ate.

It went to the House of Representatives based upon that report. The House Committee of Claims was not willing to agree to the bill. Finally an agreement was arrived at, and the bill passed which has been referred to by the Senator from Missouri, authorizing the appointment of another board, but restricting it in the rule of allowance to this point: that no allowance should be made except the loss was occasioned by the act of the Government. That board was organized, and made its report at this session. My knowledge of the case, as I gathered it from the papers that came with the report of the prior board two years ago, satisfies me that this last board has not been just to these parties. I wish to make no complaint of the Departinent of the Navy. I think that the Secretary and the heads of bureaus intend to do what is right, but I believe that they are under an influence, because they made the contracts, because the regulated the construction of the vessels, because they interposed the changes in the plans and specifications to such an extent that they cannot, in my opinion, do justice to these parties. That board was organized under the Department; it was not a board provided for by Congress; that is, the persons who constituted the board were not selected by Congress, but selected by the Department.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Who were they?
Mr. HENDRICKS. I forget now.

Mr. DRAKE. The Secretary of the Navy called the board under the act of March 2,

1867.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Has the Senator from Missouri the names of the board?

Mr. DRAKE. I have their report here. Mr. HENDRICKS. Will the Senator give the names?

Mr. DRAKE Commodore J. B. Marchand, Chief Engineer J. W. King, and Paymaster Edward Foster constituted the board.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I have no criticisms to make on the board; I dare say they are excellent gentlemen; but I think that they have disallowed in many cases where an allowance ought to be made. I think there are many of these contractors who ought to be relieved under the law of 1867 who are not relieved by that report.

Now, I wish to call the attention of Senators to this fact: that the first board said that the losses sustained were in the neighborhood of two million dollars, and the last board allowed only about two hundred or two hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars-a very great difference. The Senate was willing to pass a bill upon the basis of giving a per cent. of the first allowance. I think that this last report is not what it ought to be. I say this after an examination of the case. As far as I could, I went through the testimony, and so I believe did the Senator from West Virginia, [Mr. WILLEY,] who was on a sub-committee with the Senator from Nevada [Mr. NYE] and myself. We undertook to ascertain what were the losses of these parties, and I am perfectly satisfied that this award does not do justice. I do not wish to find fault with the gentlemen who composed the board, or to say that they were governed by improper motives. I have no doubt they acted honestly; but I think they have fallen short of doing for these contractors

what ought to have been done under the act of 1867. Inasmuch as there is such a great difference between the reports of the two boards is it not now proper that Congress should refer the case to the Government's own court, to be decided upon competent evidence to be produced by the contractors and by the Government itself? We have no occasion to distrust this court; it is of our own organization. We have no reason to distrust the principles upon which the court shall make an allowance, if any be made, because we prescribe them. We say that the court shall not allow for anything unless it shall be made to appear that the loss was occasioned by the act of the officers of the Government. If in any case the Government changed the plan and specifications of the vessels after the contract was made, and thereby delayed the construction of the work, caused a loss to these parties, the court is directed to make an allowance. Does any Senator object to that? Ought it not to be so? When I examined the case two years ago, I had before me a statement of the advance in wages and materials. I regret that I have not got it here. It would astonish Senators to look back and see how rapidly wages went up in our workshops; how rapidly iron and copper and all those things that enter into the construction of vessels and of engines advanced in price upon these men. Six months of delay was enough to ruin a contractor; a year was posi tive ruin unless he was a man of wealth. In some instances I believe, in some classes of iron, the price went up one hundred per cent. in one year.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Exactly; but the question in my mind is whether it has not been tried before this commission, and rejected because the increased cost was not occasioned by any action of the Government. The other bill was distinguished from that case, because the losses there provided for were occasioned, to the extent to which the commission made allowances, by the action of the Government. If that distinction exists between the two classes of cases I want to know why an allowance should be made here.

Mr. HENDRICKS. Whether the board dis-
allowed a claim in any particular case because
there was no loss, or because if there were a
loss it was the fault of the contractor himself,
I am not prepared to say; but of course their
allowance is based upon one proposition or
the other. Now, these contractors are not
satisfied with that, and they ask Congress to
allow another trial, a review in a court where
they can introduce testimony. They claim that
they were not allowed a full hearing before this
board, and it is worthy of the consideration of
the Senate that this board made up its adjudi-
cation in a very short time. I know that to
hear the evidence and to examine all these
cases would take a good many months of a
court that was to go through them and to hear
the evidence orally. The first board sat, I
think, five months, but the last one a very short
time; how long I cannot say. The Senator
from Missouri, I believe, did make a statement,
but I do not recollect what the time was.

Now, I think I am justified in saying that if
I were hearing this case as a judge I would
feel authorized to grant a rehearing. I do not
believe that justice has been done. The plain-
tiff asks a rehearing, to go before the Govern.
ment's own court upon testimony that may be
introduced according to law, and have the||
question decided after full argument and hear-

says he is not going to debate it. I think we can get through with this resolution in a few minutes. Let us try it for fifteen minutes.

Mr. SHERMAN. If that is done there will be a struggle about the order of business.

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine. I gave notice on Saturday that I should ask the Senate to proceed to-day to the consideration of the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill, and I think it very important to have that bill considered; but still, if the regular order can be proceeded with, and there is a prospect of concluding it to-day, I should not like to antagonize this bill with it, and will content myself with giving notice that I shall try to call it up to-morrow.

Mr. SHERMAN. I hope the Senator from Missouri, upon the statements made, will withdraw his motion, because it will only lead to a struggle about the order of business.

Mr. TRUMBULL. The Senator from Maine has already announced that he wishes to-morrow to call up the appropriation bill. This resolution will take longer some other time than now, and from the indications I think we can get through with it in a few minutes.

Mr. SHERMAN. I gave way on Saturday, and I trust the Senate will now go on with the special order.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Let us have fifteen minutes for this resolution.

Mr. DRAKE. I only ask fifteen minutes. If we cannot get through with it in that time I shall not press it further to-day.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is moved that the special order be postponed for fifteen minutes.

What was the effect? A contract was made according to which the specifications were to be furnished immediately. In some cases those specifications were not furnished until long afterward, as the Senator from Missouri has stated. The contractors could not go on; they were delayed. In other cases the specifica-ing, and then that that decision shall stand. I tions were furnished and afterward changed, the vessels increased in size and capacity, the engines increased in capacity and power, and the effect was to delay the construction of the work, and these men had to buy their materials and hire their hands when everything cost them two dollars instead of one, and that because the Department furnished the specifications or changed them after the work should have been far on toward completion. I do not think these men ought to sustain this loss. I know if they were doing work for me I could not consent that they should stand it. If I had changed the plan of a house built for me after the contract was made and it had been commenced, I should feel that I could not live in comfort in the house unless I compensated the contractors for that loss.

The motion was agreed to; there being on a division-ayes 17, noes 11.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The joint resolution (S. R. No. 100) for the relief of certain contractors for the construction of vessels of war and steam machinery is before the Senate as in Committee of the Whole.

am not afraid that the Government will suffer
by that course. I am not satisfied to see these
men stripped of their fortunes in an enterprisetion by adding the following proviso:
that commends them to the gratitude of the
country, instead of to constant loss and the
destruction of their estates.

Mr. HOWE. I move to amend the resolu

Mr. FESSENDEN. I wish to ask the Senator a question. Some one, I do not remember who it was, the other day, in stating the case on the other bill, said that the principle upon which this last report was made up was to allow for all losses that had been occasioned by delays or by changes on the part of the Government; that they picked out all those cases and made an allowance, but they did not make an allowance in cases where the losses were not occasioned by the action or want of action on the part of the Government, thus distinguishing between the classes of cases. For this reason it was said there were two bills. That bill was passed, and now this bill, as I understand it, is to provide for claims made against the Government on general principles on account of the rise of prices, &c., but where the increased cost was not occasioned by the action of the Government itself.

Mr. TRUMBULL. This is confined spe-
cifically to the law of March 2, 1867.
Mr. FESSENDEN. The other was.
Mr. TRUMBULL. This is.

Mr. FESSENDEN. It may be; but that statement was made on the other bill which was passed the other day..

Mr. HENDRICKS. I will state to the Senator from Maine that this is simply au application for a new trial under the act of 1867..

Mr. HOWE. Mr. President

Mr. SHERMAN. Unless there can be a vote on this joint resolution, I feel it to be my duty to call for the special order of the day.

Mr. DRAKE. I hope this resolution will be allowed to pass. My impression is that the debate is over. I have nothing more to say about it. I only ask for a few minutes indulgence.

Mr. SHERMAN. I understand other Sen-
ators desire to debate it. I have no objection
to the vote being taken, but the special order
comes up at one o'clock.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the
Senate pass by the special order informally?
Mr. DRAKE. For a little while.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I object to that.
Mr. DRAKE. I suggest to the Senator from
Maine that this matter will take but a few
minutes.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator from Wis-
consin wishes to speak, and I may want to say
something myself.

Mr. HOWE. I do not want to occupy any time. I want to offer an amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is made to laying aside the special order informally. It can, therefore, only be laid aside on motion.

Mr. DRAKE. I move that the regular order
be laid aside for a little while, just to get
through with this matter.

Mr. SHERMAN. I assure the Senator that
while I am in favor of his resolution, and shall
vote for it, I see around me a disposition to
debate it, and I trust, therefore, the Senate
will go on with the regular order.
I will agree
to take up the resolution at any other time, for
I have examined the question.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I am inclined to think
the debate will be short. The Senator from
Wisconsin wishes to offer an amendment, but

Provided, That no claim shall be so referred in favor of Secor & Co.; Perrine, Secor & Co.; Harrison Loring; the Atlantic Works, of Boston; Aquilla Adams; M. F. Merritt; Tomlinson, Hartupee & Co.; or to Messrs. Poole & Hunt, or any or either of them. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on this amendment.

Mr. HENDRICKS. That is not right. The Senate voted down the principle of that amendment the other day.

Mr. HOWE. Perhaps they will do it again to-day. I want to try it on.

Mr. HENDRICKS. After full discussion it was voted down.

Mr. HOWE. The Senator from Indiana said a short time since that, having investigated the facts in reference to these contracts, he believed there ought to be a new trial, that justice had not been done the contractors by the board recently appointed by the Secretary of the Navy. He may be right in that; but there should be an end to these rehearings at some time. So far as the parties named in this amendment are concerned, they have had two rehearings, two judgments in their favor, and I understand they have another claim growing out of these very contracts pending before the Secretary of the Navy now; and here is a joint resolution which proposes to give them'a third rehearing in the Court of Claims. I think that is too many.

The Senator says that the principle of this amendment was voted down by the Senate the other day. I think he is slightly mistaken about that. There was a bill before the Senate the other day to pay the very parties mentioned in the proviso a certain sum of money awarded to them by this board of naval officers. Knowing that it was to be followed by the joint resolution now before the Senate I tried to secure the assent of the Senate to an amendment which should make the sum provided in that bill a full discharge of all claims those parties had against the Government growing out of these contracts. The Senator from Indianá was willing to concede a part of that, but not

« PoprzedniaDalej »