Mr. CLARK. The man who built the hull if he performed his contract in time, would not be to blame; and I do not know that in this case the firm of Curtis & Tilden, though they did notget theirvessel 05 until twoment 5 after, were to blame, because they were delayed by the men who were to build the machinery and put it in; they were delayed for the want of bed plates. But the machine builders undertook to contract with the Government that the machinery should be read. This firm made a contract that the hull should be done at a certain time, and the engines were to be put in in so many days after. The liiills were delaed by the engine builders in not puttin in what should have been put in earlier and were then delayed by these same mac ine builders for a great length of time, 4 months after the time allowed. The Senator says the man who built the hull was not to blame; but who was? The man who built the machinery and yet you put the man who built the hu and the man who built the machinery together, and serve them both exactly alike. [hat is the effect of your bill. Somebod is to blame. The Government were defraude of this vessel I said defrauded, I mean deprived of the use of this vessel about 200 days by some body. By whom? By one or the other; and yet you propose to pay both. Now, if the man who bui tt e hull was not to blame, ay him alone, but do not undertake to pay teman who deprived him of the power of putting his work in the water and delivering it at the time he agreed to do the man who built the machinery. Now, will the Senfrom Nevada and the Senfrom Indiana turn to page 17 and let us see about this machinery? "Appeared before the board Oliver Edwards, president of the Atlantic Works, East Boston. on the part of the company.contractors for the machinery of the double endirs Sassacus and Ose eola. Under oath states, that the contract for the Ose eola was dated september fl).1862 and for the Snssacus, October 15. l 2.in which the wereallowed 7 mouthl or until April, 1863. an May 1. to complete the machinery of said vesselsand deliver them to the Government.but the Sassacuswas not so collected and delivered until September, 1863 and the aceolo until November. 1863 and here the whole summer of 1863 passed away, when these vessels should have been O crating in the southern Atlantic in the block ode, or elsewhere; the most favorable part of the year passed away and the vessels were still delayed at the wharf for the want of machinery; and yet this is not a liberal government that will come forward and pay the man what it agreed to pay after such a delay. It is not liberal to lose the use of your vessel all the summer, and then in November ay for it the same as if ou had had it original y; but it must be liberto take it off the contractors hands and pay their bills. “ The principal causesordain" This is their own statement; it is not anything as to the weight of the engine, butit is the delay I am now complaining "The principal causes of delay being the difficulty of obtaining labor and material. as the Government was putting out so much work." It was this very work that the Government was putting out that these people undertook to do, and undertook to do in a given time, for a given price, and which they delayed to do, on for which they received a full price, and are now not satisfied. The company was relieved by the Navy Dept of the term of the contract regarding the time of the comletion of the machinery. They found that they could not get alon with it, and this GOVernment, that it is sai should be liberal, was not hard; it extended the time, and then they went on; and they say “that it was finished as soon as possible; that the total cost of the machinery for both vessels was $205,027.46.” Here was a small vessel, the contract price for building the hull of which was only $25,000, and yet the price of one of these engines, as made by the machine builders when they got through, was $101513 83.