Mr. HENDRICKS. Page 44: There are many rezmonswhy the engines cost more than the amount of contract: 1st when the engineswere contracted for, drawings and specifications were not furnished us, and we were totally ignorant as to the weight of said engines, boilers, (to. row the bestinformation and belief, we were led to suppose the machinery would weigh about 380 or 390,000 pounds and haveto saythat the raw mate rial was worth about the amount of the contract, for the roason of the great excuseof weight of metal over and aboveour estimate. We would also state, that owing to the losseson thesevesselsin connection with those contracted for in 1861, namely, the Octo rara and Geneseo.we have been compelled to make an assignment. That there is no charge in the bill (annexodtothis record and marked NO. 42)for any condemnedmaterialor faulty workmanship and that the bill shows the actualcost of labor and material." I ask the attention of the Senate to this case, one of the cases upon which the Senator made a very forcible argument. The facts are these: before the contract was signed a letter from the Dept relieved the parties from the time fixed by the contract, 7 months and allowed them such time as was actually neces sa for the construction of the machinery; an 2ndly, when the contract was madethe Dept was not prepared to furnish the contractors with the drawings and specifications, and therefore they could not know the exact dimensionsof the machinery; and when they came to construct this machinery they found that the raw material, the iron clone, cost them about what they would receive for d trial trip sat 1864." the machinery when finished. Is there no cqm.y there? Is there no justice for these claimants, as shown upon the report, in the very case that the Senator makes a forcible argument upon? Is there nothing to be considered by the senate in the fact at the Dept, before the contract was signed, foun that it was impossible for the machiuer to be constructed within the time limited, and hy letter allowed them a longer time? Is it not to be considered by the Senate that when the contract was made the specifications and drawings were not preared, e parties were not informed so as to form a judgment of the size and weight and cost of this inachiner? Is it not to be considered by the Senate that when the work came to be made, it was found that the material itself cost the contractors as much as the contract price? That is all that I have to say upon that case. On page 17 we find the case of the Ose eola. The Senator made a strong point upon that. On page 7 will be found the contract and statement or the hull. The contractors for the hull showed that they could not complete the hull until the machinery was oompleted. That is the point upon which the argument of the Son ator turnc, that the hull could not be completed until the machinery was ready to be put into it. What is the statement of the contract ors for the machinery I Let us see if they have no equity before Congress, admitting the argument just as strongly as the Senator states it, that the hull was not finished, and that the cost of the hull was increased because the machinery was not ready to be putin at the end of the 6 months: “ apearedbefore the boardOliver Edwards.President of the Atlantic Works, East Boston, on the part of the company, contractors for the machinery of the double endeisSnssiicusandOse eola. Under oath states, that the contractfortheOse oolawasdnted Setcmber 20, 1802, and for the Snssacus, October 15. 12, in which they were allowed 7 months or until April, 1863 and May 1863t.o completethemachinery of said vesselsand deliver them to the Governmen but theSussucuswasnot so completedand deliver paragI September IStiaeni.dthoOse colauntil November, Several months, 6 months, perhaps, utter the time limited in the contract. "The principal causesof delay being the difficulty ofobtaining labor and material, as the Government was putting out so much work. That the company was relieved by the Dept of the terms of the contract regarding the time of completins themachiu cry and wasfullysntisfied thutit wasfinishedassoon as possible." If there was a contract made to build machinery which it was supposed would cost $82,000, and it was intende between the government and the contractors that the work should be finished in 7 months; if in fact it could not be done in the nature of things; if there was a mistake both on the part of the Dept and the contractorsha mutual mistake, and that mistake results in a great loss to the contractors because of the fact that the work had to be done at a time when material and labor cost so much more than was anticipated, I ask Senators, if, upon grounds of equity, the parties are not entitled to relief. The Dept felt that the work could not be finished within the time. It is shown here that the Dept was satisfied that it was completed at as early a day as possible, and the epartinent itself relieved the parties from the terms of the contract in regar to the time limited. But further in the case, which the Senator did not call the attention of the senate to because it did not he in the line of his argument there was another lpoint to which he alluded in another part of is argument these contractors say: “That the excessof cost ovar and above the contract price wasdue.mainly.to the fact that the contract was acceptedu on the representationof Chief Engineer Isherwoo that the wciaht of material would not exceedthat of the Paul Jones more than 15 %., when In fact it did exceedthat of the Paul Jones 707 5%: another cause being the rise of material and labor." There is their case. They did delay the comlction of the hull; that is not to be questioned; but how did it occur that they delayed the comlction of the hull? It occurred because of the hurt that such machinery could not be constructed in 7 months. Here is the machincry for 22 vessels, and in no sip. gle case was that machinery completed within, the 7 months. Why 1 Senators will not say that all the contractors were negligent;that all the contractors lacked means to prose cute the work with diligence. That cannot be; pretended; but it is apparent, as I think, that it was impossible to complete the work within " that time. In these 2 instances to which I have called the attention of the Senate in resones to the Senfrom NewHampshire the Dept felt that the work could not he completed in the time fixed in the contract, and extended the time, and held that the work a was done at as early 0.day as possible. Then the further oint is stated, that Mr. Isherwood, who, understand, is a very skillful man in his profession and every competent officer, thOughtthat this machinery would not weigh more than 15 %. above that of the Paul Jones, but when the machinery came to be constructed according to the specifications and drawings subsequently furnished, it weighed far beyond that and cost enormously above the sum contemplated. The Senator has called the attention of the Senate to the fact that the contract price of the machinery for the Paul Jones was $52,000. In the investigation of these cases I did not think it important to inquire into the case of the Paul Jpones. That was machinery built before these contracts were made. That was machinery built when everything was at the very lowest price, a contract made long before these contracts were made, and machinery completed before these contracts were made, and machinery, as I understand it, completed before there commenced to be an advance in the cost of labor and material. lfthe Senator be right that that machinery cost but $52,000, what weight ought that fact to have upon the judgment of Senators? That work was done when iron cost but half what it did afterward; and if Senators will look at the table accompanying the report of the committee the will see that the labor upon the machinery of the Paul Jones and the material used in its construction, could not have cost the contractors 1/2 of what it cost these men to complete their contracts. Therefore it is no fair test, that because the Paul Jones in 1861 could be built for $52,000, all these ought to be built for that sum, or they ought to be built for $82,000. The contract price was $82,000 and it is evident beyond all Siestion that the machinery did cost for above 1;. I cannot undertake to go over ail the cases that have been referred to by the Senator; but I say the fact that in not one single instance was the machinery completed within the time specified, but many months were required on t 9 part of all these contractors to complete that machinery, shows that there was a mistake on the part of the Dept, and on the part of all these contractors, too, in regard to the time necessary for the construction of the machinery. I take that as a general proposition, that there was a mutual mistake, on that mutual mistake, causing the work to run into months when labor and material were much advanced, accounts for the loss sustained by these parties. I submit to Senators, are not contractors oftentimes relieved upon grounds of mistake, in equity? Even in the courts, between man and man,if there is a mutual mistake, equity will correct that mistake. Whether cquity between man and man in respect to a question like this would relieve, I will not say; whether this would be a precise case for the interference of a court of chancery, I will not say; but as between the citizen and the Government, I do claim that there being a great mistake in regard to the time necessary for the construction of this machinery, it is such a mistake as appeals to the conse ience and sensf of equity and right of the Government. Thatproposition. that all these parties were mistaken in regard to the time, that the Dept itself was mistaken in regard to t the time, and the further fact that this was much heavier machinery than was contemplated by any of these contractorsyccrtainly ought to control when we come to administer equity between the Government and the citizen. There was a point made about a misprint of the name of the Mendota. That was called at the proceedings of the board Mcrcedita. Iwas embarrassed to understand that when I came to examine the case; I could not find the report of the Mendota, and the facts of the case, but upon a careful examination I succeeded, as the Senator himself seems to have succeeded, in identifying the vessel. The llcrcedita mentioned on page 5is the Mendota unquestionably.