Mr. HENDR CKS. The weight of the may It is down near the bottom machinery was specified when the contract was reduced to writing, though not when the work was commenced. I ask the attention of senators to that important fact. Parties come here and make repositions to construct machinery. The specifications and drawings are not re. pared. They can know but little about it. 1 hey propose to construct the machinery for $82,000 pervessel. The go on and commence the work. Afterwar the specifications are drawn up, and it appears, after they have commenced the work, that it costs very much more to build the engines and boilers than was expected. I ask if that does not establish an equitable right to relief on the part of the contractors. I believe that was the case in regard to every one of them; that the work, in fact, was commenced before these contracts were reduced to under the supposition that themachinerywrwitoinng d be about of the weight and cost of the Paul Jones, or rather the weight of the Paul Jones; the cost would be greater, inasmuch as there had been an advance in labor and material. The Senfrom Nevada [Mr. NYE] has called my attention to the evidence that is furnished on page 21 as the weight of the machinery of the Paul Jones:. “That the excessof cost, over and abovethe contract price, was due to the greater weight of engine than the contractorswere led to expect them to be. Mr. Isherwood, chief of the Bureau of Steam Engi neering, having assured them that they would not exceedthoseof the Paul Jones class 374000 pounds." Another one of the contractors says, under oath, that he understood that the machinery was to weigh from 380 to 390,000 onnds; and the evidence in the case of the awtuxet is that the machinery weighed 630,000 pounds, almost double that of the Paul Jones. That mistake ran through all these cases, in regard to the weight, and I submit to Senators whether the Senfrom NewHampshire has succeeded in establishing a substantial error in the report of the board in regard to any of the other cases. His argument is aimed at the contractors for the machinery. When it a pears that there was a mistake on the part of teDept and on the part. of each one of these contractors in regard to the time necessary for the construction of the machinery; when it appears that the contractors thought, at the time they made their bids, upon the representations made to them in the Dept, that this machinery would wei ll about as much as the machinery of the Pan Jones, and when it. further appears that the machinery weighs greatly more, and is greatly more expensive, ask Senators if the case for relief is not substantially made out.