Mr. HENDRICKS. I am not able to say where these men lived, or where they discharged the duties of their office. I find them to be Officers of the Government employed in the construction of vessels. Whether they were superintendents of these particular vessels I cannot. answer the Senator, nor do I care. They knew the character of the vessels, their dimensions, and all about them; and when called upon to examine the accounts presented they say that those accounts are correct. It must be so, because they know what would necessarily go into a vessel of the sort. Another oint made by the Senfrom Missouriand) the Senfrom Ohio is that we are not required to give much force to the finding of the card; for what reason? For the reason that that board was organized pursuant to a resolution of the Senate. I am not able to understand the moral force of that argument. If the HoRep had concurred in the resolution, and a board. composed perhaps of these same men, had been organized by the SecyNavy under a JtResolution, do the Senators believe that the investigations of the board would have been more thorough than they were when it was organized by a resolution of the Senate? Where is the force of that objection? These officers were discharging a duty to the Government. Did they not do it fully and fairly? If the award of arbitrators is questioned because of partiality, mistake, or fraud, you must show it; the fact must be made known; and in the absence of some evidence on the subject the award is presumed to be honestly made, and made upon a full investigation of the case. Now, here is a board organized pursuant to a resolution of the Senate. I was not present, as I now recollect, when that resolution was passed, for I think I left a day or 2 before the adjournment of the extra session, and I knew nothing about its introduction or its passage; but it is a resolution of the Senate, and a board is organized pursuant to it to do apar ticular duty for the Government. Why is it that the finding of that board has less moral weight with the Senate than it would have if the board had been organized under a JtResolution of the 2 Houses? I am not able to see. The Senfrom Missourireferred to the case of the Onondaga. That vessel is said to be one of a very fine and very superior order. The Senator said that the delay in the construction of that vessel was not occasioned by any act of the Government. Ifhe will turn to page 19 of the record of the board. he will find that he is mistaken. It appears there: " That the causesofdelay in building the hull and machine of the Onondnga were on account of expenses havaong aotaenrdatAiosnesu.tannedy. also the sameas apply to the Expensive alterations were ordered by the Government. Both Senators referred to the fact that some of these parties may have constructed other vessels and may have made profits out of those vessels, and it is proposed by them to set otf the profits that may have been made in the construction of other vessels a aiust the losses that were sustained on these. pou what principle does that rest? It is a new idea to me. know nothing about this except that I heard it stated, from no reliable authority, that Messrs. Ends & Co., constituents of the Senfrom Missouri, had made money in other work. I know not hing about it except just as I have heard a rumor to that effect. Suppose that Eads 65 CO. did make money in building some other ship, was it not right that they should make something? Ought the profits that were made by them in the pursuit of their business, profits that they would have made in doing work for individual citizens of the country, be taken away from them because they sustained a loss on other vessels? I do not understand this proposition of setting 03 prof its that may have been made on other vessels as against losses sustained on these. I do not understand it either its a legal or a moral proposition, unless they obtained the contracts on which they made the profits by imroper influences, unless there was fraud in them. Then perhaps there would be some moral propriety in offsetting. I do not know that the contract: Were made all together; but I think they were different contracts for ditierent characters of vessels. I know nothing about it; butif they made profits, it is what mechanics expect, that they a all make some profit, and I cannot see the principle of taking away their profits on one vesse because they sustained a loss on another. Mr. President, suppose that Eads & Co. in 1862 made a contract to build 2 vessels, and the Government suggested from time to time alterations in those vessels, and they are the losers upon those vessels to the amount of $50,000, and suppose they take contracts for 2 other vesse s, and the Government does not interfere at all, there is no trouble about them, and the go on and complete their contracts within the time specified and they make a profit on those contracts, wh shall you take that away which is right and which they ought to enjoy to set it off against losses which were occasioned in part by the act of the Government.? The Senfrom Ohio used an illustration that I think is unfortunate for the purposes of his argument. He says that men have lost money by buying corn, oats, horses, and other things for the Government during the war, and that we upon the same principle t iat we indem nify the constructors of ironclads and moni tors ought to indemnify those ordinary contract ors. I am surprised that the Senator does not see adifference. A man oes to a quartermaster or a commissar or what purpose? Not to produce but fortepurpose of buying and then selling to the Governmentupon s cculation. His purpose is exclusively to me e a speculation. The mechanic in his shop produces; he is not asieculator; he is alaborer. He expects by his In or and his enterprise and his skill and his judgment to make a profit and he makes a contract with the Government and the Government interferes with him in the prosecution of that contract and he asks to be reimbursed; and it is said to him by the Senfrom Ohio, “ You, a mechanic that exend your money and your labor for the benefit of the Government, stand upon the same moral proposition as the speculator, the shoddy contractor, who expected profit and nothing else when he made his contract.” A man contracts with the Government to furnish corn or hay or oats for the Army; he expects to go out and make his purchases at once to fill his contract; he knows what the prices are, and he can go out and satisfy his contract at once. If he contracts to supply 9,000 head of horses at $100 a head, lie knows what the present cast of horses in the market is and he goes out at once and fills his bid.