Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, before the vote is taken upon either of the amendments, or the bill itse t", the Senate will indulge me with a word or 2 upon the merits of the proposition contained in the report. The Senfrom NewHampshire [Mr. CLARK] must have satisfied the Senate yesterday that some of the claims should not be allowed unless some explanation can be given in relation to the particular claims to which he called attention that is not to be found in this report. It is not necessary that I should call the attention of the Senate to the 2 cases to which be adverted, because he did it so clearly yesterday that it must be fresh in the minds of the Senators who were at that time present. The honorable member from Massachusetts [Mr. SUM nsu] seemed to suppose and that was the easewith one or 2 other Senators that what the Senate has already done and what has been done under the authority of the Senates resolution exclude us from the right to inquire into the justice of these claims, that we are bound to allow everything that was allowed by the commissioners appointed under the authority of the resolution of the Senate. If I took the same view of that resolution as was taken by the Senfrom Massachusetts, I should certainly vote accordingly; but I do not so understand the Senate resolution of March, 1865. The resolution is: Remlued. That the SecyNavy he requestedto organise a board, O not less than 3 competent persons whose duty it shall be to inquire into and determine howmuchthe vesse ls of war and steam machinery contracted for by the Dept in the years 1863and 1:563cost the contractors over and abovethe contract price and allowance for extra work and report the slime to the Senate at its next session. None but those that have given satisfaction to the Dept to be considered." The whole authority communicated to the board by the resolution was to ascertain, 1st, what the contract price was, and 2nd, to ascertain what in point of fact was the whole expenditure under the contract made by the contractors; but why the expense exceeding the original contract rice was a matter not submi ted to them. His Senate wished to know hether the expenditure exceeded the contract price as a fact. reserving to themselves the right to decide, if it should be ascertained that teamount did exceed the contract price, whether the difference should be made up by the Government, or how much of the difference should be made up by the Government; and either of thesequestions would necessarily involves further inquiry not submitted to the board by the resolution, what were the reasons which induced an expend iture exceeding the contract price. The reasons suggested in the 2 cases referred to by my friendfrom NewHampshire yesterday, in the 1stplace, were not submitted to the board to inquire into; and in the next place, if they had been submitted to the board, they would clearly have committed an error in supposing that they constituted any ground at all binding the Government to pay the difference between the contract price and the actual expenditure. I feel. therefore, under no obligation to allow what was allowed by the board; and the question before the Senate is one to be decided under all the circumstances of the case. Is it right that these contractors should be allowed more than the contracts with the Government entitled them to demand? That they have no legal right, lsuppose willbe admitted, because, althoug as between the contractor and the Government. any alteration in the vessels not stipulated for in the contract would bind the Government to pay the additional expense consequent upon the alteration, and perhaps would bind them to indemnify the contractor for any expense consequent upon the delay in the completion of the work because of the change of the model of the vessel or the engine, it is perfectly certain, as all these contracts provided that there might be a change, that as far as the law is concerned, as between the Government and the contractOr, there would be no oliligation to pay anything except for the extra work. But. we all know, and if we did not know it the facts stated in the report bring it before us very satisfactorily, that there must have been in some of these cases a loss where there was no failure at all on the part of the contractor. The work which these contractors undertook to perform was a novel one. As the honorablechairman of the ComNavAffrs told us the other day, no such vessels as those that we desired to obtain had ever been built before, or if ever built before they had never been built in the U.S., and our mechanics were therefore in a great measureinexperienced in what would be the cost of vessels of this description, and the government were equally inex crienced. It was impossible, therefore, that t iey should be able to make any exact, accurate estimate, as they are able to do in relation to work the nature of which is fully comprehended. They went on therefore from time to time to chang very materially the model not only of the h lls of these vessels, but of the engines, until the succeeded in obtaining, as I believe they ave, vessels equal if not superior to any to be found elsewhere, and the rendered as very material service during the late civilWar. That service was not only the service of putting it in our power to terminate the war perhaps sooner than otherwise it could have been terminated, but it was in placin us before the world as a maritime Pewer of t ie very 1st rank, and that fact alone gives a pledge I think of safety so far as foreign wars are concerned. Nothing but absolute necessity, a necessity growing out of some imputation on the honor of other governments, or some gross violation on our part of what is due to the other nations of the world, would induce them to engage in a war with the U.S.; and as I do not apprehend that any such wrong will be done on the part of this Government, I feel sure that none of the nations of the world will ever engage in war with the U.S. if they can honorably avoid it; and that security has been accomplished in a great measure by the success of these vessels. I hold in my hand, Mr. President, a statement of the reasons which in a particular case led to an expenditure much exceeding the amount of the contract price; it is upon the part of the contractors in the city of Baltimore who built the machinery for the Mackinaw, machinery, as I understand, that has turned out to be as crfect, and a great many think more perfect, than any machinery that has been built elsewhere for any of these vessels. They were engaged in very profitable business at the time they entered into this contract; they were soli cited to enter into the contract by the Navy Dept; the works of the Navy could not supply the immediate demands of the service, and all the other works, private as well as public, were oppressed by the urgency of the demand and these gentlemen were applied to to build this machinery. Their statement is this and the Senate lam sure will credit the ir statement, because 2 more honorable men are not to be found anywhere. The parties to whom Iallude are Poole & Hunt, who built the machinery for the U.S. double ender Mackinaw. They say: 1. Poole & Hunt accepted this contract at the soli citation of the Navy Dept. at atinic when the nuvy yards and privatemiirineengincbuildingestablishments of the country werefound to beinadequate to meet the exigenciesof the public service. 2. No specificationsor drawmgshadbeen prepared by the Navy Dept.for wantottiuic. heprice to be paid for the machinery. namely. $82,000w. as fixed by the Dept and Poole tit Hunt assured by said Dept that the price thus fixed would be iim lc, and the caseof the Paul Jones. then but recent completed.wase ited as proof. 3. T o specifications subsequently furnished to Poole [c llunt by the Navy Dept required in their fulfillment much heavier and consequently more exensive machinery than Poole dz Hunt had suppose from the rercsontations of the Dept that they would O required to furnish. 4. The cost of the machinery to Poole in Hunt was greaterth nn tosomeothercontractors, forth; reasons, 1st. that they were not regularly engagedin marine enginebuilding and had to expendsum!in rental tf wharf property. erection of shears for hoistinrl. 310.: and se conly. that the hull of the vessel, wthe was built at one of the Government norynrdu.was not delivered to Poole 6.: Hunt for meat s after the apointt dtime. during which time lllfllEllfll5 RD(Ilabor nd advancedin price far beyond iill anticipations. 5. Poole Jr Hunt during a period of cat public necessitydevoted their workshops to oconstruction of this machinery. to the exclusion of other, orders from private parties.uponwhioh a fair busi n profit could have been made and in estimating the cost make no charge for their qwn services. but include only the items of expensedirectly and lastly chargeable to this work and which determine the actual and positive loss. 6. Poole Hunt do not askto bepuid a profit upon the cost of the machinery, but having fait fully supplied said machinery. at the pollll 10l ossassetforth in the report of the naval commission and having had from the Nov Deptno other ordersupon which a profit could be madeto otfsot the lossmade upon the contract in question. only claim to have said actual loss reimbursed to them. the actual loss as made to appear to the satisfaction of the board I think was between 42 and 43,000 dollars. As I have said. Mr. President, there is no legal claim perhaps to make this demand; but it seems to me very clear that in relation to contractors having a claim under the facts stated by these particular claimants, it is but right. that they should at least receive some indemnity; and under all the circumstances perhaps it would be a fair settlement of the whole concern to give them a certain% age above the amount of the contract price. I should prefer the%age of 15 %., but if the Senate are unwilling to give the 15 %., of course I would vote for the proposed%age of 12%. I could not vote for the whole amount proposed to be given by the committee of this ody, not only because it is perfectly evident that in some cases there is no claim for any amount, but 2ndly, because in a case of this description it is fair that where there is a mutual mistake there should be a compromise; and a compromise, as I think, can be made so as to do something like justice to both parties by giving 12 or 15 %.