Mr. MORRILL. I am very much in the position of the Senfrom Missouri; that is, M I know nothing very specially about this case. I have a general impression resulting from a general reading of the case and from some observations upon the case as it has proressed here. But what occurs to me is this: what are we to gain by sending it back to the ComNavAffrs? We send it back to them for what purpose; with what expectation? Is it said that any new light has been elicited by the debate? Are we satisfied that this committee have been corrected in their judgment, instructed, or informed by this de bate, so that they are in abetter condition now than they were when the debate began? If so, there might be seine hope; but if they are all of the opinion of my honorable friendfrom WestVirginia, [Mr. IVILLEY] I should have very little expectation of their changing much this report. Is it expectedby those who propose to send the report back to the Naval Committee that new evidence is to be taken? Is there any new evidence to be olfered? Is it to be returned to the committee with instructions to reinvestigate and take new evidence? If not, what is to be gained by a recommittal? It is to be recommitted, I hear it suggested, for the purpose of classification. How valuablethat would be, I do not know. It might aid the Senate somewhat in its investigation, possibly; but after all it would not enlighten the judgment of the committee, and so far as results are concerned they would reach the same things precisely and now all of us can see that this is a question of confidence to some littleextent. I feel that I, to some extent, am to vote on this as a question of the confidence I repose in the committee and the commission. I believe the allowance is reduced now, on the motion of the honorable Senfrom Iowa the chairman of the ComNavAffrs, to 12%. on the contracts or 12%. on some definite sum. That I understand now to be the judgment of that committee; I believe the entire committee. The moving of the amendment by the honorablechairman conveyed to me the inference that that is his judgment; and nowl understand the committee are agreed that at least 12%. ought to be paid. I understand the suggestion of the Senfrom WestVirginia to be that there are no claimants name in the bill who ought not at least to have that much. Now, sir, if we are to act on that basis, what on earth is to be gained by longer delay in returning this to the committee? The classification which is suggested as possibly being an advantage to us, after all I conceive will be of very little use to us. I have read this report, and at one time I went through it somewhat with a view to make up a general judgment about it; and I think there is specification. Although there is general aggregation, there is detail; each case is set down by itself and each casIe was considered by itself. have made up my mind that on the whole, if it came to a general vote, I should vote for this bill, not that I have examined each case in detail and have become satisfied of its particular merit, but I do not forget the general fact that this work was done at a time when every body must know that in the nature of things it was impracticable to do the thing without losing money. The Government was pressing in thesesho sinall directions. They were crowded with wor. They gave up their own private enterprises to facilitate the public service; and I think we all know enough of the general disorders of the countr, the general disruption of business affairs, to now that it was impracticable in the nature of things that these business operations could have gone forward under the circumstances at all economically to the contractors. But I am not going to argue the question, because I am not sulticiently posted on the particular facts to justify it. I mean to say simply.