Mr. GltllIES. To various claimants. Some of them have been allowed on these contracts, and these are claims they demand in excess of the extras that have already been allowed. I beg leave to read the following statement and analysis of these cases furnished to me at my instance from the Navy Dept: MEMORANDA. Some of the contractors appear to have embraced. in their accounts all the materials they collected, iving a credit for what remained in their hands. pages 8. 60, 61:) others presentwhat they call “ cost prices.” and others, again.what they should have as profit prices.” The enormous disarity in these claims is surprising. when it is consi cred that the various classesof the vessels and the machinery are exactly the same and contracted for at about the same tiuie. In the wooden double enders. the claims of the builders of the bulls vary from $4, 015to 374.124 for the machinery for these vessels. the claims vary lroni 8), 8t1o7 31.752. On the iron double enders, from $155, 07to1 113.543; on the machineryfor the iron clnds. 3 of the parties make no claim and the 4th makesa claim 0f $35$232zon the iron tugssomeparties make no claim, and others vary from rrlJJISto$52, 472O. n the vhaarrybofrroamnd$7ri1v, e5rom9toonitors the claims on each vessel 8276.543.Taking up the classes of Vessels and machinery in the order of the report. (pages 62. 63.64.)the 1st to be consideredare the DOUBLE ENDEKS WOOBDULLS. The contracts for these vessels were made under a public advertisement, as Will beseenon pit es789and message the documents accompanying the President of the 3rd sessionof the 37th Congress. They were awarded to all at the same price. which wasthat of the otlerof the lowestbidder; some of the parties took 2 vessels, and several applications were made for contracts on thesameterms after the Dept had decided not to increase the number. I These vesselswere all commenced and finished under the superintendence of the sameofllcers and are substantially alike in all respects; and all the bills for additional or extra work wereexaminedand certified by the same superintendent.Rear Admiral Gregory The claimof the builders of this class of  vesselsflhe hulls) is based uponthe fact that the engines were not. placed in them Within the stipulated time and that consequently the parties were unable to complete their work and receive “ the several payments as agreedupon in the contraot.” The contracts provide that the vessels shall be launched and delivered to the partieswho areto erect the machine on board.within a specified time, and that within 1i ty days thereafter they are to be fully completed. The contract further states that “ in the event of thesteammachinerynot being erectedand completed on board the vesselWithin the time specifiedfor the completion of the vessel, she being in all other respectsfully coin lcted. the final paymentshall then bemade.Withhoing only as much as may be necessary to execute the work remaining to bedone." lhe paymentswere to be made in 6 equal parts. as the work progressed.with a reservation of 20%.from eachpayment; and as the amountpf work sfleeified by the contract was executed, the bills for one portion were at oncepassedalzityhe superintendent; the bills for the extra or ditiona work were passed as rapidly as they could be examined anIdt prepared. was estimated by the superintendent that the amount necessaryto secure t a Government. as to the work to be done after the steam machinery was completedin the vessel, should be 85.000, and that sum only was withheld. the other payments of the contract beingmnde on all the vesselsas they reached the stage authorising the contractorsto receivethem. The only valid claim which can be made by them is for the rise in the price of labor during the time they were prevented from completing the work. the value of which. includin materials, did not exceed 85.000.They could not aye laid out of the money for they had not expended it. The amount of delay appears to have been about a year. To fairly balance the matter. should anything be allowed the builders of the hulls an equal amount should be deducted from the buiders of the engines.as the dela arose wholly With them; and yet they present claims for losses growing out of this delay. The claim advancedby some for town their vessels from their work yards to those of t io builders of the machinery is without much foundation. The Dept can d. in fac have had all the vessels constructed in the ports w era the steam machinery wasmanufactured; but with a view to cpeouraging the ship building interest of other portions of the country on additional sum of $500wasotfered to as chose such to If accept the contract with that condition. any increase is to be made on account of this transportation it should be extended only to Mers. Sampson Lnrraliee dz Allen and Paul Curtis. as the vesselsbuilt by these parties only had to be towed at sea. With regardto the actual losses of all kinds sustained in the construction of thesevessels, it Will be observed that the contractor for the Otsego. Mr. Westorvelt, of NewYork. Makes no claim whatever and is understood to be satisfiedthat he has suffered no loss; and it Will be further noticed that 6 respectble builders can only make a claim offrom $4.000to 5,000 doubtless after iberally estimating every cause that could have swelled the cost and that too, on a contract which amounted to $76,000. The vesselswere all built on the same plans, from the same specifications.under the some superintendent and r ctions were only made from the extra bills When the parties had eharged as extra work that which was rightly due under the contract or athi her B1100! than the average market rates. When these ills were propeiglrprepared they werenobreduced. a iact7shown by. Cramps statement at the foot of 9585 MACHINERYroit THE woonsn pouanl nlmms. Thestatement of tho contracts for the machineryof thesevesselswill be foundon page971of the Report of the Navy Dept accompanying the Presidents giessage for the 1st sessmn of the 38th Congress. It will be perceivedthat onegroundonwhich these extra claims are made to rest by seineof the parties is that the actual weight exceeded the estimated weight. Ono party (page34)makes the excessto be 33 and 1/3rd% and another party (page 17) stutes it to have been 75%.; an yet both these parties built exactly the shine machinery. The machinery for these vessel was identical in all and on the general plan of that of the Paul Jones. as the parties state. It Wiisnot possible to have the large number of drawings that were necessary made at once: but the specifications were printed and in the hands of all the interested parties. These specifications gave the dimensions of every part and described the kind of material and manner in which the work was to be done; they were attached to ever contract. so that the contractors before executing ein know precisely What they had to perform. The dimensions of the machinery were somewhat larger than those of the machinery of the Paul Jones class and the price was $82,000 instead “$50,000 paid per vessel of thiitclitss. Oneof the contractsof the party who claims an error of 75 %. wasdatedmorethan amonth after and his 2nd contract 2 months after the Dept had awardedthem to several other parties. all known to him and from whom he could have ascertained what he was undertaking to do. The contractor for the machiner of the Iose o and Massasoit. who, on p e 15, len s oh"the claims on this machinery. omitte to mention this extra weight in his 1st statement but subsequently introduced it. (page42.) Taking another example. that of the machinery of the Peoria. (page20.) it will be seenthat this contract was taken 2 and a half months alter the others were awarded. This party. in addition to the claim for extra weight. states that the poor iron he used caused the condemnation of muoh work and the workmanship wasrequired to be superior to Whathe had intended the give causing him much delay. To what extent this has been enteredin his honks may be surmised from his extra charge being 862.53846 on a contract “$82,000. Some of these parties charge interest and the cost of collecting these bills, (page21, )and otherse harge 10%. for general It expensesof shop, (page25.) is orceive on page 15. that Messrs. Haslehurst 5i 0. who constructed the machinery for the Eutaw, have no claim to make; and on page 44. Messrs.Morris & Tacony. state Co. whobuilt the machinery for the thatthe amount received from the government was more than the actual cost: and they malnli1:10 allusion Whatever to lossof time or extra wei. the contractors for the machinery of the Wyalu sing and Mingoe. Messrs. Pusey, Jones 6: Co. only claim a losso105.81730on. each vessel.though their facilities for executing this work are much lessthan those of all the other parties; and they distinctly stateI on paga 24. that this excess did not arise irom any increasein the price of material, as they purchased that when theymadethe contract. We have here 2 respectable parties stating that they have suflereilno loss and another that their lose only amountsto 86.817.After them the claims riii. from820.331t, o 322.386to. $25, 119to. 829.780to. $210, 617 to 538, 3!to 840.433t.o 644.015 and to 861.752c, ool: on a contract of only $82.01!). This machiner was to have been completed in from 5 and a half to 8 months from date of contract. Had the contractoin performed this guarantee it is deemed that they would have lost but little. if anything, from increase of prices either in labor or materials. IRON DOUBLE ENDERS HULLSAND MACHINERY, The next classvof vessels is embracing the hull and machthineeirryo.n double endure. The contracts for the vessels of this classWill be found on pageso09and 972of the Report of the Navy Dept accompanying the Presidents massage for the 1st sessionof the 38 h Congress. They are 1st named on page 11lotthereport. The Wuterce is a similar vesselto the Suwanee and Shii mokin. but about 60 tons less in ioniinge. The extra chargeon thesmallestvessel is $31, 16163; that on the Shiiniokiu is given as $33, 99297 and on the Suwaneeat$28, 07118. These vesselsappear to have all beenin construction at the sametime and from 7 to 8 10ths of the extra cost is charged to steam machinery. This machineryvis the sumoasin the woodendouble end (HS and t ie claim is similar in the one caseas in the other. The work ndditionulto the contract Witspaid for when the bills were presentedto the superintend out and certified by him. The extra claims vary from 828, 974t.o $33.992 to 863.715t.o 582.460to $111354. 3. The reports from the commander of the iluliongo represent her wood work as being very inferior. woooim mox cmnnsrss! )HCHINERY. The statement of these contractswill he found on page 972 of the documents accompanying the Presidents message for the 1st sesswn of the 38li Congress. mIatchWinilel rbye noticed that the contract plrice for the of the Miantonomoh. on which alone a claim is made is from 828,000to $30,000more than for the other vesselsofthis class. On page20 Messrs Merrick state that thay make a claim for additional compensation for identically similar machinery in the lonawnnda; nor do Messrs. Morris 6: Co. make any claim for the machinery of the Moniidnock and Agamentiens.the same class of vessels and machinery of the samepower. On page51Will be found astutement by the inspecting engineer that the work on the Miantonomohwas not prosecuted With all the ability and seal in the power of the contractor. mon TUG BOATS HULLSANDuaenmaar. The statement of the contracts for these vessels will he found on page 1092of the Report of the Navy Dept accompanying the Presidents message for the 2ndsessionof thoThirt8th Congress. ItWill beseen from that state t who claims $13.58698on the Maria rtehcaet ivWe.dPoenrinheis. contract more than Pusey, Jones in Co. who gp &ag3i2s4i.claim only an additional allowance of H a The Triana, on which Mr. Perine claims 8.52.47821 is an identical vesselwith the Pinta and Nina and at the samecontractprice; on which vessels Messrs. Rooney & Co. onpage 1 statethattheyhave noadditional claim to make. he statement that oneparty has no claim to make, while another prefers a claim of 852.472o.n a contract of 5128.000 for an identical vessel, requiresno additional comment. IRON GLADPKOPELLERS MILWAUKEE AND WINNIBAGO HULL and MACHINERY. That statement of the contrnct for theseVesselsis found on page 7930 f the Report of the Navy Deptacom )an the Presidents messagefor the 3rd sessionof tic hirty Sevoiith Congress. The contract price for these vesselswas 831841!) each, being for the 2 vessels. The contractors. ou pages60and 61.statethat they had received from the Government the sum of 8701.94684. but there has beena.further payment of 824.000on these vemcls which does not appear to have been noted.making in all $775, 04864. fromwhich it appears that thesum“$140, 946Bl has been paid for additional work and the claimis thus reduced to 865.61304 for the 2 vessels. This claim is solely on the ground of the depreciation of thenational currency. which. 1 ifiillowed, iipplics equiilly tonll the contractsmudeby all the Depts of the Government. ini i1RO.V(moronin rnaasr) vsssiii. ONOIDAGA. The statement of the contract for this vesicl will be found on page 794of the Report of the Navy 1890 April i1 1, GLOEE. Dept accompanying the Presidents message for the 3rd session of the 3Severith Congress. The contractor on one19statesthat in the cost of this vesselhe has aded the n%. "for the useof shop. tools. 810. in building engines and boilers.” By referenceto the detailed bill presented to the ibfoad reduced amount is found to be 819.91887.which. reduces the actual claim for contract work to $690.2364 and "the excess of cost to him over and above the contract price" to 665.25764. instead of 885.15651. The sum in excessof the contract that has been paid to the contractor for this vessel is $131, 63708; and of this amount the usual proportion is undoubt edly profit. If the profit on this extra work bea plied to the losses which the contractor states O experienced on the regular contract work. the loss cannot be large. if indeed there is not a profit on the vesselas a whole. HARBOR AND RIVER IONITOBS RULL ANDIACHINEBY. The statement of the contract for these vessels will be found on pages 788. 793 and 79 1of the Report from the Navy Dept accompanying the Presidents Ienessagefor the 3rd sessionof the 37th congress. In the caseof the Catawba and Oneota, mentioned on page 25.it will be noticed that large sumshave been paid for extra work. These bills covered the alterations mentioned, and inclu ded the usual proportion of refit: but on page5?it Will helpercci d that Chief ngineer King gives it ashis opinion that there his been great overcharge on some parts of e wor. In the case of the Mahopao, Tecumseh, and Man hattan, (on page 32.) large amounts were paid for alterations and ditions and the bills undoubtedly included the us a1proportion of profit. In the case of the Mnnayuuk, referred to on page56, the parties state their inability to do wgrk ldVBnIfl iQOUSlY in comparison with the parties in NewYor, and at their bill is 834.4;1ll5less than the hills of the NewYork contractors: and on page 57it is stated that claims for labor are far in excessof those paid in the neighborhood. The Snugus was an identical vessel.yet when the contractorsfor lipi. Mossrst flarlan & 00., werecalled on to make their claims it will be soon on page 16that they had none to may c. The copy of the books of the contractor for the Tippecanoe, an identical vesselwith the pbove, embracing her cost shows that he charged in it the full price of the tools he purchased giving no creditfor their value after the completion of the work, freights on these purchases expensesof himself and clerk to Washington and NewYork. a bu for his superintendent, the horse for which, thong notmentioned.may bein some other part of the bill. This is merely cited to show the character of the chargesthat occur in those accounts. LIGHT DRAFT IONITOES. There isonly oneclaim madein thise lass, embracing 20 vessels. On page 16, Mr. Harlan; on age2), Messrs. Merrick: on page38, Messrs. Curtis dzlildon; and up page41, the Globe Works. statethat they have no ClfllmSto makeon these vessels.All the contract ors for this class of  vessels Wore treated alike. Iomroa CAIANClll l. The statement of this contract will be found on page 79 1 of the 3rd volumeof the documents nc companying the Presidents message for the 3rd sessionof the 37th Congress. This vesselis similar to the Tecumseh and others. named on page 63;but therewasno increase madein the deth of the vessel arid the additional work ozderemwas paid for. including the usual proportion O ro. he contract was for the construction and delivery of the vesselin California. but the contractor built the Vesstl lll NewYork and transported her, in pieces, to California, where she wasput together. The claim seemsto be basedon the "premium on gold in California." The statement of one of the contractors, IlVBIl on page 59. shows the manner in which the accounts of t atv cl werekept and the description of expenses the G crnment was expectedto pay. With regard to the$96, 500m suit. the Navy Dept can have no cqnnce tionwithit. as it is a matter pending between private parties. As the claim for this vessel seems to be made wholly on the premium on gold, (page 34) which is only another oppression for depreciation of the national currency. it obviously cannot be entertainedwithout applying it to all other contracts. The Comanche is the vessel to which I alluded as being the one that was sunk in the harbor of SanFrancise o in the transport ship in which she was carried around in pieces from NewYork, where she was constructed, I think the nightafterslie reached SanFrancise o, occasioning great loss to the ownerin salvage, &o., and for which I would be disposed to make a proper remuneration. Mr. President, let me repeat that Iopose this bill because it is an omnibus bill. I now there are just claims in it. There are some of these men who ought to have some compensation. I am not prepared to say but that there may be some persons embraced in it who ought to have all that it is proposed to allow them. But it will be observed by the analysis I have read that here are at least 6 or 7 different olasses of tessels, the contracts for the building of which were made up at 20 different times; they were to be builtin different manners and under different circumstances, and here some 30 or fort of them are huddled together in one bill, an the attempt made to pass them throu h. I have said that this bill embraces only a portion of what will probably he presents to the Senate for their a option if we shall establish this principle. I am ready to take up and examine these cases seriatim, or I am Willing to create a tribunal before whom they may be sent; but I am well satisfied, from our experience of the kind of tribunal created by the resolution of the Senate last spring, that however valuable these officers may be on the decks of their vessels fighting the enemies of their country, they are not exactly the kind of men I would select to enter upon judicial investigations in regard to contracts between the Government and individuals, or between individuals themselves. That is beyond their sphere, I judge; and I think nobody would be more disposed to recognize that fact than the naval O cars themselves, all of whom I believe attempt to avoid the necessity of being coimipelled to perform any such duty. Mr. President, it is with great reluctance that I have been constrained to differ with the majority of the ComNavAffrs on this subject; but ever since I have been a member of this body I have had only one rule on these matters; that is, never to vote for put ting private bills upon appropriation bills or agreein to make any kin of an omnibus bill by which a bad claim shall be carried through congress upon the back of a good one. Sat isfied as I am that that principle is right as a general principle, and that it is certainly right in this instance there is no alternative left me but to vote against the bill, and, differing with the committee, I thought it my duty to state the reasons wh I did so.