Mr. HENDRICKS. The Suwanee was of the same class, manufactured by the same house, at the same yard, for the same price. I believe, and a little less was allowed for the loss on her by the board. She made her voy age to California in a little less time than the Waterce. That does not prove that the Wat As I said before, I resume the Wateree had to encounter a sea which her construction and style did not fit her for, and when she got to California she had to be repaired. Senators know very well, and the Senfrom California knows very well, the cost of repairing vessels in California. I believe that labor cost 5 dollars and $6 50 per da in old at the Government works at Iare Iyslan when gold was 250, making labor on that coast to cost, in the Government currency of the country, ten, 12, or 14 dollars a day; and of course it cost a great deal to reair a vessel there. I do not have it from the dept, and I do not know how true it is, but the gentleman told me that one of the vessels that was constructed in a Government yard was taken to California, and was so battered in the voage that she was put upon the stocks at the hiare Island navy yard, and it cost as much to repair her upon that side at the enormous rates paid there, as it would cost to build her upon this side. It may not be so. It cost a very considerable sum of money at any rate. There is no question about that, I presume., Now. sir, we have the evrdenee of the Dept in submitting the case of the whateree to this naval board that they considered her satisfactory, for the resolution did not allow any claim to go before the board unless the work was done to the satisfaction of the Dept. In the next place, we have a statement from the Dept addressed to the ComNavAffrs, which the chairman of the committee read the other day, and there is no objection made to the Wateree, to her machinery, or to the style of her construction by that report that I now recollect. There is some objection made to another vessel, to some wood work on the Mohongo, but I believe no objection was made in that report or memoranda to any other vessel that ismentioned in this award. Now, Mr. President, toconclude what I have to say on this subject. the Senate at the last session referred this whole subject to the Navy Dept, and authorized the SecyNavy to organize a board to estimate the amount of the losses that were sustained by these contractors. Was that right? Was it right for the Senate to contemplate the payment to these contractors of the losses that they necessarily sustained? As an original proposition, is it right? Is there any Senator ere that desires to see these men broken up for work done for the Government during the war? On that subject I will read what is said in the report of the committee: “ The committeebelieve that in many other cases the completionof the work wasdelayed by the notion oftho Dept.becauseit is the concurrent testimony of many of the contractors that such was the case and also becauseit could not be otherwise. in asmuch as the part of building iron clad ships of war wasnot then perfect; it was yet in experiment. O much so that constant modifications of the plans ecaine necessaryas the use of completed vessels discovereddefectsorsugircstcclimprovements and it would hnvo boonafailure of duty on the part of the Dept had it failed to intrpducc any improvement at any time durinit the progressof the work; and to the fact that diligence and cure wcfo observedin that regardisin art to be attributed the production of a navy so perect and so formidable." But suppose the Government had not interfered at a, and had not from time to time directed modifications of this work, which caused delay, and which threw upon the contractors the necessity of buying material and employing labor at greatly increased prices; suppose the contractors had made a mistake simply in regard to the cost of the work; and suppose that during the war they gave their entire energies to the production of a navy that astonished the world; are Senators willing that these enterprising citizens shall be broken up in such an enterprise? Was it a commendablething that they undertook these contracts? Our navyIyards were fitted for the work of ordinary times, but they were not of sufficient capacity to produce a navy such as was required during this war. These citizens undertook the work. They have met with misfortune. Ought that misfortune to be borne by the people, or shou ld these contrnctois be crushed in their patriotic enterprise?.I admit, unquestionably, that the hope of making a profit may have in fluenced them to some extent; but upon that subject I Will ask the attention of the Senate to the facts reported by the committee: " I from Messrs.Lenthall and Ishorwood.of theNavy Departiiiept and Mr. Wood. the general inspector. the committee learned that the petitioners entered into their contracts upon public competition. after genernlnotice; that the lowest bid in nclass was tnken as a standard, which those biddinir higher had to adopt. and thnt the prices were barely fairiit the then current rates; that the petitiouers dealt fairly and honestly by the Government in procuring the very bestmaterial which they could command, and doing the bestguality of work and that they werediligent in udoptinirall measuresin their power to complete. howork Within the stipulated time.” This evidence, as I recollect, was brought before the committee at the last session, and this is an extract incorporated into this report from the report that was made to the Senate at the last session of Congress. Then these contracts Were made by these men at prices barely fair at the then current rates; barely fair in Septein her, 1862, so ferns many of the vessels are concerned. The prices from that time went on from day today and from month to month advancing. These contracts were made by some below their own propositions, and at barely fair prices at the then current rates. Is there any Senator here who wishes to see these men broken merely because they entered into contracts wiutp1 the Government? Is there any Senator here who wishes to say to these men, “ We have your bond, and we will hold you to your bond; we will take the blood out of your busmess; we will have the pound of flesh." Mr. President, With this evidence before the Senate I cannot conceive it possible that senators would desire to enforce a rule that between private individuals it is felt would be a hard rule to enforce. If a mechanic were to enter into a contract With any Senator here for the erection of a house, and it should afterward be proved that the material and labor cost much more than was expected, is there any Senator here who would be Wliiln to take that house upon the bond and see the mechanic broken up? As between man and man, this would be regarded as a hard rule. Between the Government and the citizen who undertakes in a time of pressmg need to produce that which the government must have it is an oppresswe and out rageous rule, in my Judgment, that would hold him to his contract and his bond. But, sir, the committee say further: " The delays occasionedin the work by the changes of the plans caused largo lossesto the contractors; 1st. by leaving their labor unemployedfor the time upon their hands; 2nd.byre uiring themtoenrry insurance and interest; 3rd y the constant and rapid increaseof the costoflubor and materials and the depreciation of the currency. for which the De nrtmentcoulduotgive adequate and comploto relief. Hedelnys worked a special hardship upon the builders of the 9 vessels 1st mentioned as it was provided in their contractsthat they should each receive 2600 Marday for every day their vesselswere complete before the time limited for their completion. Roin Mr. Wood. the present enernl inspector.the committee learned that this class of contractors to overcomethe delay occasionedbythe ohunfies in the plans and waiting for the specifications.on to meet he earnest requirement of the Dept for an early completionoftho vessels. Prosecuted the work at night and onSundays and that for such work they were compelled to pay double prices, for which the Dept did not and could not make them any compensation." Again, they say: “The committee are satisfied that the petitioners have sustained and are sustaining heavy losses. which it wasnot in their power to avoid after making their contracts. The contractswero generally for largo amounts and required a long time for their completion. It was impossible for them to makepro vision for all the material required, or to furnace and provide against the gr cutadvancein the price oflu or. The demandfor iron of peculiar on large sizes and finequality wns great the supply small.u.nd the meansof producingit in t ie country limited. New macliiner for preparing and rolling it wasnecessaryunder such circumstances builders of iron ships and heavy machinery could not contract in advance for such quantities as would be required even could they advancethe money.so that they werecompelled to abide the fortunesof the market. During the rog ress of the work. by many of the petitioners. nbor and materials have advanced.perhaps. 100 or cont. This was not foreseeneither by the reck essor the mostprudent. The increasedeost of labor and materials outrun the calculation of every one. Ought the lossesresulting from such a state of facts to full entircly upon the petitioners? The committee think not. lirst. for the reason that the Government. by her own competition for skilled labor and material, contributed materially to the losses. 2nd. the Government. by the modeand manner in whiphshe imposed her taxes, contributed to the rean I will not read further from the report, and will now leave this question so far as um concerned, with the Senate. When the cases of these contractors were presented to the committee, and referred to myself along with the distinguished gentlemen who were associated with me on the sub committee, I gave the subject very close attention. I soon became interested in the examination, and during the prog ress of the examination Iwent to the navy yard, and I saw one of these vessels, the Maho ac, a vessel that has cost the firm who built it $119,000 more than the Government has paid for it. That vessel has gone through the strife of the war. She was in the James river when her services were very important. She rendered very valuable service at Fort Fisher, and came out of it battered and bruised with the marks of the enemys cannon balls upon her and now, sir. as she lies at your navy yard battered and bruised, here, having come out of the war, proving herself to be a 1st class vessel, of great value in bringing the war to a close, is there any Senator willing t“o say to the enterprisin firm who built her, We have gotyour vesseig; she has done us val uable serviceshe helped to take a most difli cult point, liort Fisher, where failure had occurred before; a point that had to be taken in order to stop the supplies of Richmond; she has helped to reduce Wilmington; she has contributed very lar cl to bringing this war to a close; but we will O (1you to your contract, and you shall bear this loss of $119,000?” As to the question that is raised, and the most plausible objection, and the most difficult to answer. that this is an omnibus bill, we cannot examine each case. The entire Senate is unable to do that. But at the last session, upon the motion of the Senfrom Nevada, this question was referred to the Navy Dept. reyou willing to risk a question of this sort with the Dept that represents the government? Are on distrustfiil of the SecyNavy in theselection of a board? Who can best examine a question of this sort? You admit these men ought not to be broken up for work they have done during the progress of the war. You admit that the changes of the market ought not to fall upon them and crush them when the Government has received the benefit of their enterprise and investments. Then you say we ascertain what allowance ought to be made? At the last session the Senate said it was a safe thing to submit that question to the Navy Dept, and on said to the secyNa, “Selecta card." You did not impose the vduty of investigation upon the Secretary himself, but you said to him, “Select a board and ascertain how much these men have lost.” Were not these men authorized to infer from that resolution that you intended to pay the losses that it was proved had been sustained? You said to the Secretary, “Organize our board, and submit these cases to the boar, but do not submitany case where the work is not entirely satisfactory; but if a man has done his work well, if the vessel has proven to be a good vessel, submit it to the card, and let the board take the evidence and report to us how much the losses are.” That is not an omnibus proposition, because each case went before the board upon its own separatemerits. the boardwasorganizedin June, 1865, by the Secretary of the lNavy. Forwhat. purpose? For the purpose of ascertaining, safely to the Government, fairly to the contractors, what was the amount of loss in each particular case. Is it not fair to infer that the SecyNavy would select men that were qualified for that duty? I think he did select such men. Who are they? I disagree with the Senfrom Iowa with regard to this board, as I understand it. Here is Commodore Thomas O. Selfridge. I understand that before the war fe was in charge of the navy yard in California, and was supposed to be qualified for the very business of superintending the construction of vessels and the repair of machinery, and he is now, as I understand, in charge of the navy yard at Philadelphia. Is it not fair to presume, then, that the learned Senfrom Iowa is mistaken in his suggestion to the Senate that Commodore Selfridge was a competent man on board ship, but probably did not understand very much about machinery. The government has found him peculiarly well qualified; and I understand that he was selected upon this board for the reason that during most of the time this work was being done an these contracts made Commodore Selfridge was in California and knew nothing about these contractors or their claims, and came as an entire stranger to them and went upon the board without any feeling, prejudice, or previously formed opinion. I submit to Senn tors, if Commodore Selfrid e is fit to be at the head of the navy yard at hiladelphin, is he not competent on a board to investigate the i question whether a man has sustained a loss, I or not in the building of a ship 1 Tim next member of the board is Chief engineer Montgomery Fletcher. I understand, that when these contracts were made and this work was done, he, too, was not here, but was at some distant. point, I do not know where, but was entirely removed from an influence these contractors wuld brin to hear upon him. He was an engineer. e ranks, I believe, in the Navy, alon with Isherwood, who is in the Dept. do not know that he is so competent and so skillful a man. [do not make any comparison of that sort; but I say his rank as a naval o the cr, l believe, is equal to that of the engineer in the Navy Dept. He is an engineer in the Navy Dept by his profession and by his studies is well quali fled to make these investigations. Then there is Paymaster Eldredge. I understand that he was selected because of his skill as an accountant. These claims of course involved the examination of very elaborate accounts, and I understand they were thor oughly examined; and he is one of the most skillful accountants in the employ of the Navy Dept, and because of is qualifications in that respect he was selected. I believe that this was a very competent board. Is the Senate not willing to risk a board so or nized, selected from the skilled men of the dept by the SecyNavy, to make a particular investigation, safe to the Government, as I remarked, and just to the contractors? They sat for live months, from June till December, heard the evidence, examined the claims, examined the accounts, and made their award on the 23d day of December last. Can we not trust to an investigation of this sort? If Senators say that it is right to make up to those men their losses without any profit, can you have a better assurance that the right has been ascertained than you do have when a board so organized makes a report? Now, sir, I think it is safe to rely on that report. The Senfrom Iowa and I say to the Senate that on a question of this sort we ought all of us to give very much weight to his suggestions, for he is very competent, very thoroughly informed on everyquestion in relation to the Navy, and we al know that he brings to the investigation of any subject a most honest purpose, just, as he understands it, to the Government and to all the parties thinks that the proport of this board is not sufficiently reliable for Congress to make an appropriation upon. I am not quite able to agree with imon that point, but if he shall feel it to be his duty, as I understand he will, to reuse an amendment limiting the amount O all owance to a%age upon the contract price, I do not know that Isall seriously oppose it. If any of these parties shall find it impossible to live under that allowance, they can present their particular claims to Coneress, if they choose to do so, hereafter. I submit the question with what I have said to the Senate.