Mr. Eads made money upon the other contracts he is entitled to be paid for his losses upon these 2 vessels? I understood from Mr. Ends, who is a very highly honorable gentleman indeed, that upon one or 2 vessels he had lost some money, but I surely did not understand from him that he lost money upon all the vessels that be constructed. My understanding was quite to the contrary; and ifwe are to allow urge sums of money for losses sustained in the construction of some vessels I cannot see why there should not be a set off at least of the amount of profits made upon other vessels constructed by the same parties. My friendfrom Indiana tells me that the Messrs. Secor, who are allowed forlurgclosses by this report, constructed other vessels. Am I, by my vote, to allow them a large amount of money to reimburse them for losses upon the vessels named here without knowing what amount of profit they made upon other vessels? I do not know but that the contracts were all taken together; probably they were all taken together; and it is sure] a very dangerous prece cut, as stated by the Senfrom Kentucky, to make these a lowances when the parties have really made large sums out of the Government upon other contracts. The Senfrom Massachusetts says that this is a court that we have established to investigate this matter; and he asks, do we not take the reports of the Court of Claims? certainly we 0, but the Court of Claims was established by act of Congress. Was this board established by a jomt resolution of Congress? I do not so understand. We are acting upon the supposition that this is an inferior court, and that its decision is binding upon us, and that we must necessarily allow these claims. Why so? This was nothing but a resolution of the Senate, adopted on the 9th of March, 1865, making it the duty of the SecyNavy to organize thlS board, and directing them to make a report. It was no law of Congress and this board had none of the attributes o a court. In fact, their proceedings did not possess the solemnity that should attach to a court, and of course we are under no obligations whatever to pay their awards. I understand that this was a mere preliminary proceedin to ascertain the amount of loss sustained by these parties, and if they did sustain any less, then to open the courts to them, so that there might be an investigation and the amount found due paid. If the Senators who are urging the of this bill will bring in a measure to oppaesnsage t 18 Court of Claims to these parties, not to investigate their legal claims against the Government, because they have none, but to ascertain the amount that is equitably due to them, I an perfectly willing to vote for it. If they have sustained losses on all their contracts taker together with the Government during this period of time, I am perfectly willing to open the doors of a court where they may be heard; but I am wholly unwilling to adopt the proceedings of this board and call it a court binding upon me. Why, sir, I have no evidence before me, nor has any gentleman yet stated that such evidence is before us or can be produced, that this board went outside of the representations of these parties themselves except what was stated by the Senfrom Indiana, who always states his positions correctly, that experts, men learne in this business of building ships, wereintroduced perhaps to testify as to the general cost of these things. Let us look at t 1is report for one moment. Here is the contract for the Winnipec: “The contract for the Winnipec was made August 21.1863.to be completed in 11 months; but the vmeelglsnfiowtycsompleted and accepteduntil March Why was that? I see that the parties in this. case are allowed every dollar that they claim. The Government is allowed nothing on account of this delay. This board awarded to these parties $63, 715 41 for losses, and yet the vessel, which was to have been completed in 11 months after the contract was entered into, which would have been in June, 1864, was not completed until the war had nearly closed. I see no suficient excuse for that. Here is the case of the monitor Comanche. What amount do these gentlemen say we must allow them? 179,993 dollars and 80 cents, the amount of loss, as we are told, sustained by these contractors. What was that contract 2 t was made June 20, 1862, and the vessel was not completed and delivered until January, 1865 not more than 2 or 3 months before the war was concluded. I know that some reasons are stated why the work was delayed, but when we come to look at those reasons they are unsubstantial. I will now refer to the iron clad Onondaga. We are told on the 6th page of the report t at"Tho contract for the iron clad Ononduza was made May 26. 1862 and was completed February 1864;thocontract price was8625.0“)t, hecostclaimed was$710, 15661, and the award $85, 21391.“ Now, let us see what the committee say was the cause of this delay: “The delay in the comlotion of the vessel was occasioned by scarcity of labor, dlfieulty of obtaining materials, strikes, and having to close his shop for 2 months on account of mobs in the summer of1863.”. Was it in consequence of any action of the Government? Was it. in consequence of the depreciation of the currency? here is not a word said about that; but we are told that it was owing to the scarcity of labor, the difficulty of obtaining the materials that entered intothe construction of the vessel, and strikes. Why, sir, these things all occur, and they arethings, as was very justly said by the Senfrom Kentucky, that contractors always take into consideration. Is the Government to be responsible for these things? Surely not. I do not wish to take up the time of the Senate. If these parties have lost money I really wantto auow them something. I do not ask thatthese parties shall be broken up or that they shall be ruined when they were doing the bestthey could, and acting very much as the Government itself was acting, (as was very correctly stated by some Senators) in the dark, in the construction of these vessels. I am unwilling under all the circumstances that they shalllose if they have lost; but what evidence havewe that they have lost?