Mr. MCDOUGALL. Perhaps there may be another view taken of this subject in regard to the rule. There was a law passed for the construction of these iron clads, and there was an appropriation made for their construction. There was then a law and a provision for payment, with the right to contract for their construction, with the right to alter the plans, with the right to make any changes, and the right to do it with the consent of the contractors, which immediately created an obligation on the Dept and charged them just as much as the original contract made between the parties in writing. It is just as obligatory, and the money here claimed could have been aid out of the Treasury upon the warrant o the SecyTreasury from the appropria mode for they construction of the iron clads. There was a law for the construction of iron clads, and a general approp'iation placed in the hands of the Secretary, and he was given a general discretion. He was authorized to charge the Treasury with the responsibility of his proceedings in their construction; and when he changed the plan of the vessel, or when he asked for a different thing to be done from that which the parties agreed to do, it was an ad dendum to the contract, just as binding as if it had been put in writing, with all the ceremo nies of the Dept. You can make no distinction between the contract. the result of these circumstances, and the written contract, so far as obligation is concerned. Here, then, I say, is a contract with an appropriation. There were circumstances that charged the Government with a positive obligation. Why is that not an exception which takes it out of the rule relied upon by the chairman of the ComFinance“! Then, Mr. President, the question whether or not this matter shall be considered is a quetion for the Senate todetermine by a majority vote. The Senate is not, and never has regarded itself bound by any technical question on such a subject. ensures of this kind, private bills, have often been placed upon appropriation bills, the Senate taking the responsi hility of doing it, the Senate thinking that the circumstansces justified it. Surely, if circumstances would justify such action in any case, this is that case. I trust, under all the circumstances, without raising mere technical questions, although I believe the technical point is in tavor ot the amendment, the Senate will allow it to be considered on this bill, it being the universal voice of the body that this is a just claim which should be paid, and a denial of this acknowledged justice will involve ruin to the parties claimant.