Mr. CLARK. I suppose that is so. 1 turned this book throng and I could find no such vessel as the Mendota; that is, no contract for the hull. I then recurred to the table. I found the Mendota placed there at such a price, and looking through I came across the name of the builder, Mr. Iucker, of Brooklyn, NewYork, who is said to have built the Men dota, but here he is reported to have built the Mercedita, and the ercedita is nowhere to be found in the table. We had a vessel called the Mercedita. Ithiuk she was at NewOrleans in the fight there. I think she was purchased by the Government; she was not one of these vessels. “F. Z. Tucker. ship builder at Brooklyn. LongIsland and constructor of the U.S. steamer Mcrcedita. having been duly sworn. stated that the contract for aboveship wassigned September 9 1802 to be launched and uilded (in 126 days) on January 13.1863: that the vessel was launched on that day and delivered to engine builders, after being coppered.on January 24 1863. to receive her machinery." This man got his vessel along; she was launched on teday. “ That the total cost of the vesselwas892, 47570.as perstatement marked No. 4, and annexed to these proceedings tho contract to have been $75,000; that tphreicree.wbaysoprdaiedr obfyInh simpefcotrorexSt.raMw. ork done over the Peck and others, the sum of 84.02070.as perstatement marked No. 5 and annexedto these proceedings: and alsofor work done in accordance with specifications but not required in general advertisements for bids under which the s ip was commenced by authority of the hnrenu to have been 87.33573. as perstatement marked No. 6 and annexed to these preceedinls; leaving a loss on his part. over and above these amounts. of 86.11927 on the original contract price for the hull; that no money for extra work has ever been paid to him over and above the contract stipulation; that the engines and boilers were to be comlcted by builder:I of machinery in 50 days or arch 14.1803 but was not completed until February 14.1864.( 340 days)” 11 months after they were agreed to be furnished they were furnished. All this time the hull of the vessel was rendered useless by the delay of the engine builders. This man may deserve his price for his hull for nught I know; it is not very much above the contract price I believe some 4000 dollars; and yet I think there is something in this report that will show the manner in which these costs were made up. I ask the Senators attention to (page 81 in regard to this guuboat Mendota. n the 19th of June, 1866, Mr. Tucker made up his bill of costs for that vessel and presented it to the board. Mr. Naval Constructor Pook was asked about it on page 81", and in regard to that bill he says: Having examined the extra bills of F. Z. Tucker. for gunboat Mendota. I am of opinion that someof the charges are improper, and that he be requested to examine and correct them." Here was this board established for the purpose of ascertaining the cost; they met together, and they notified contractor A to come before the board at such a time; they notified contractor B to come before the board at such a time; and they camehthey made up their costs, and then those bills were examined; they were submitted to the naval constructor, he was asked whether they were right and proper; in many of the cases he said they were right and proper. In other cases he said they were not rightand proper; and “Mr. Contractor wont on correct tieml” Iask the attention of the Senate for a few moments because I will not run through all these cases, there are 42 of them, and the would weary the patience of the Senate on take up too much time to the case of the engine of the Lenapee, on page 42: " Appeared beforethe board Mr. Joseph Belknap, superintendent, and on the part of the Vashington Works. contractors for the machinery of the Lena pee. Under oath states. that the contract for the vessel was dated by the Navy Dept August 25.1862, in which they were allowed 6 and a half months or within 2 months after receipt of hull from builders thereof, to complete and erect the machinery on boardbut that the vessel was not so received until June 19. 1363 and the machinery was completed August 31.1864. The principal causes of dbeulrasytiinug completing the contract were owing to the of a oiler while being tested and difficulty in obtaining labor and material." They have built an imperfect boiler, and while they were testing it it burst, and so they were caused delay. “That the cost of machinery was 6111.16124: contract price received.882.000l: cavini: an excess of cost over and above contract price. of $29,16124." and precisely that amount of cost, $20,161 24, was allowed them when they set down the extra delay to the bursting of a boiler which they had made imperfect. I suppose if they bud burst eutirel up and blown their shop up, the whole would have been pasSed in. It does not seem that it made any difference what was claimed, what went into the cost, whether it was interest on shop and tools that were not fitted for the work, whether it was the unskill fuluess of the contractors and the workmen, or whether it was the want of preparation, or the bursting of a boiler, or anything else that went into the cost, it was allowed; and now we are asked to pay 12%. on the contract price. I should be glad to see some measure before the Senate that would do more justice to these people than this. If a man is entitled to the consideration of the Senate, has been delayed by the Government and for that reason has been put to cost, that cost ought to be paid. It should not be 12%. If he has been delayed by his own unskillfulness, his own negligence, his own want of care and skill and industry, then he should not be paid, not 12%. nor any other%age. These people say: “That the excessof cost was owing to the rise in labor and material and also to the fact of the time of the comlotion of the en inebeinir extended overund above the time specific by the contract. due to the fact of our being unable to procure the necessary labor and material." I will ask the Senate to turn for a moment to the case of the hull of the Lenapee, which is found on page 13 I think I alluded to this before where the contract price was $75,600 and the cost price $150,000, more than double what the Government offered to give them. They contracted to do this work for $75,500, and they say the total cost of the vessel, inclnding the bill for extra work, was $152,691 37. Now, PaulEnrtis, ofBoston, builtthe Ctheopee, a vessel of the same class with the Lenapee. He took his contract on the 9th of September, 1862; and Edward Lupton, the contractor for the Lenapee, took his contract on the 9th of September, 1862, precisely the same day. Of course the same price for materials was to be paid by both. The same prices for labor were to be aid by both. One was operatinv in NewYorkii, near the commercial center, on the other was operating at Boston. They were each allowed 126 days, until January 13, 1863, to complete their contract.