Mr. CLARK. The same model. Now, it is evident at once to the Senate that they had their consideration for it, and they are not to be allowed to come here and complain that the engines were heavier than that of the Paul Jones, when their price was proportionnbly heavier. Butl want to go along With these hulls. “ That the contract price for eachvesselwas$75.000 each.$30,000. The total cost of both vesse lmincluding nll extra work. 8130.12490. That therewas aid by the Government for extra work $10, 3193; allow ancu malls formnterinl sold after completion of ves rel. $1.5rl793;allowance made for material on hand utter completionof vessel.$1, 300;making a total for extras of 813.20786. That the total cost of bothves sels over and above the contract stipulations and amounts paid by the bureau for extra work was $17, 22154. Precisely that sum is reported here: for each vessel $8, 610 77 allowed by the board. “The contractors for the steam machinery were 50 days after the hunchinl. in order to D I cannot tell now, but I can erect it on board. which time expired in the caseof the Aenwurnon June It), 1563.but that she was not by themdelivered to the Government until December 9. 1803.232 days.” Here is the point: here was this Government engaged in blockadinga coast many times larger than ever had been attempted before; they wanted the vessels, they contracted for the vessels, they stipulated to have them at a given time; but. these people did not deliver them for more than a year afterward, some 6 months. some 9 months, some 12 months after they had agreed to deliver them; and all that time prices were rising; and now they come In here and ask us to pay, not for the vessels at the contract price after that time, but to pay for all the extras they were put to by reason of their delay. After so long a time elapsed beyond the time at which the vessels were to be completed. if the Government had said, “Wewtllnot take these vessels; we wanted them for blockading the coast; but you did not furnishthem in time; the war is well ni h toward its end; we will not take them, ” could these contractors have complained? But the Government did not say that. The Government said, “ We wrll take the vessels; we will pay you the price which we stipulated, even at this late day;” and yet these contractors are not content. They want the Government not only to pay them the price which it agreed to pay, 9 months or a year after the time had elapsed, when it had been denied the use of the vessels, but also to pay the extra price whiclr arose by the enhancement of labor and materials while they were thus delaying. m“aAchpidneriny the caseof the Pontoosuc.insteadof the 50 days exbpeiirnegd completed on July 9.181 when the 2 years nearly before the war closed "she was delayed until May 16, 1864 or 361 days.” That was within less than a year of the time of the surrender of Lee. She was detained for the want of the machinery 36one days, only 4 days less than a year, enhancing the price of the hull, which we are obliged to pay, O priving the Government of the use of the vesse and then calling upon us to pay this enhanced price. Does the Senfrom Indiana think that quite right? I will ask him, then, to turn with me over to pages 16 and 17, and let us see about the machinery for the Pontoosuc and the Agawam. "Appeared before the board Edward H. Dayil. treasurerof the portland Company.Portland. Maine, on the part of the company.contractorsfor the machinery of the doubleenders Pontoosuc and Aga wnm. Under oath states. that the contract for these vesselswas dated. by the Navy Dept. Auzust 30.1862" A little more than a year after the war commenced “in which they wereallowed one and a half month from April 21.1863, the time of receiving the hull of the Agawam from the builders. to comp ete the machinery of said vessel and one and it half month from May 20.1843t3h.e time of receiving the hull of the Pontoosuc from the builders. to complete the machinery of said vesselsand deliver them to the Government; but the Agnwamwas not so completed and delivereduntil Novemberm. 1863;the Pontoosue until April 14.1864." Now, I ask the Senators attention particularly to this part of the report, if he will we it to me, to what these people say themse ves in regard to it: “The principal causeof delay was from the difficulty of the work and being unrepured tor the manufacture of marine engines, the works having been employed, previous to making this contract, in the building of locomotives principally; labor we. obtained with didiculty and when obtained. of an inferior kind." Here is this very remarkable statement I invite the attention of the Senate to tt that these men undertook work which they were not prepared for, which they were not skilled in, which they found to be dtificult, and for which their shop was not reared, and they were thus delayed 270 and 360 days in the 2 cases by their own inabilit and want of preparation for the work which they undertook; and vflethtey come forward and ask you to pay them apiece on each vessel. That is the report on each of these vessels which were. delayed thus by their own insuilicieney in proamtion for the work. If a man who is unski led in work undertakes to do it, and binds himselfto do it, who is to suffer for it? That was exactly this case; and now I want to ask the Senfrom Indiana whether he thinks that men who had not the abilit to do the work, and who found it difficult, whose she was not fit for it they had not been used to uilding marine engines they had been used to building locomotives Vmnt to ask him whether, when such men undertake work of that kind, for which they are not fitted and for which they are not prepared, the Government ought to pay all the extra expense the are put to by such unskillfuluess an want O reparation? The do not say a, word about e engines being eavier, that I remember, and yet they may. I will lookand see; they go on to state: "Th atthemachineryfor both vessels coist 8222.67096; that the bills for extra work still unpaid are$1, 21037 tota.lcost, 6223.82616: that the contract price was, for bothvessels. 816LOOO leaving a balance, the excess of cost to them over and above the contract price including amountclaimodfor extra bills, “35032616.? Resulting, as they so., from the difficult character of the work, in om their not being prepared for it in their shops, because they adnot been used to building marine engines, but to buildin locomotives, and because they could not get abor and materials. That is the statement they make themselves; and what is worse than all this, when they ask you to pay $59, 826 16 extra, they go on to say: “That there is no chargein this bill for proportion of general expensesin running the works which is estimated to o 12 and a half on the whole amount. which is a minimum charge, amounting in all to $26, 71281, which they claim as a part of the actual cost oftho vessels machinery.” They sustained a loss on the contracts of $59, 826 16 on the 2 engines, and then they wanted $26, 712 81 as interest on their tools, which they so. were not fitted for such work and which de aed the work; and this boar actually allowe them $21,04136 for interest on these tools which were not fit for the work, and swelled the whole amount of allowance u to over 80,000 dollars. This boar report for these 2 vessels completed in that way about 97,000 dollars extra. They report on each of the hulls $8,610 77, and on each of the engines $40, 433 73 to these men who undertook work which they could not; (perform, for which they were not prepare, and which the delayed the Government in getting, one of them within 4 days of a whole year, when the Government wanted the work. Now, I want to ask the Senator a question. He says that when ageneral fights a battle and wins a victory, we vote him thanks. Do we vote thanks to that commander who is ten miles behind and does not get up into line? Most of these men were a year behind and did not begin to form in line at the time they said they would, deprived the Government of the use of the vessels all the time they were so hanging back. The price was going up and enhancing, and they ask the Government to pay that enhanced price which arose from their own delay. That is the statement of the case. I ask the Senfrom Indianaif he is in favor of paying the 2 men who built these 2 engines. Did not the Government do all for them that the Government ought to do when they took these engines oll their hands, nearly a year afterward, and paid them the full price under the contract? lf the Government had said to these men, “You have been delaying this work; we have suffered for the want of these engines; cu agreed to furnish them at a certain time, but you did not furnish them; we mnstdeduct so much from yourpay;” what could these men have said? What would an individual have said in a case of that kind? Suppose one individual had contracted with another to furnish him a marine engine on a given day, and he did not furnish it until a year after, and that man had been losing all in trade and amine“ by the want of that engine, what would an individual have said? He would have recovered damages, and he would have been entitled to damages. He would have recovered damages such as he could have shown in any court. But the Government did not say that the Government did not sayto these men, “lVe must have damages from you for not fulfillin this contractf the Government went forwar liberally, at the end of the time, took the engines, and paid the men the money. Now they are not satisfied. They come in here and say, “ We must have more; it is very true we delayed you; it is very true in the case of the Agawam we were 223 days behind; it is very true in the other case of the Pontoosuc that we were 361 days behind; but the Government ought to be Generous.” I agree the Government should be liberal; but when men come into the Congress of the U.S and ask the Government to be generous, they should show that they performed good service for the Government. The bill is now in a better situation than it was some days ago; but if we give these men what this bill provides, 12%, we shall pay them over 19,000 dollars for de aing work in that way, for delaying work by their own unskillfulness, for delaying work which they could not accomplish for the want of proor experience, for elayinfi work for WfllliOlPplOptlshops and tools; on they knew when the undertook that work just what their sheps on tools were fitted for, and they knew.thot their experience had been in locomotives and not in marine engines. Now, Mr. President, if it could be shown on the part of these contractors that they under took this work unwillingly, that the Government came to them and besoughtthem to take up this work, that they objecte to it, that they stated to the Government they were not used to doing it, that their tools were not prepared for it, that their she was not fitted for it, that they had doubts whether they could carry it through in the time stated, and that the government then ored them, and said, “ We must have this work from some quarter; we will run the risk, and you must undertake it and do the best you can, ” that would have been one thin; but there is not a particle of proof of nnytlhing of that kind. They do not suggest it. These men were anxious to get these contracts; many of them were exceedingly anxious to get them, some not so much so. When the persons to whom the Senator has alluded took the contracts the weight of the engines was specified and they knew what they had 0t to do. It is true they undertook before that to build them, and had gone on before they got the contracts to commence their work; but they had signed no contract, and if when the contract came and the specifications came, they found the work heavier than they expected or agreed to do it was easy to say, “