Mr. HENDRICKS. I wish the attention of the Senate for a few moments to one or 2 ints made against this bill by the Senfrom NewHampshire [Mr. CLARK] some days since. It will be recollected by the Senate that the Senfrom NewHampshire objected to the bill upon the ground thatitprovided relief for some persons whose title to relief be doubted. Among others, be selected the contractor for the machinery of the donhle enders Chenango and Asentney, Mr. Quint ard. Now I wish to call the attention of the Senate to the very points in the report to which the Senfrom NewHampshire alluded in his argument. After showing tis excess of the cost Over and above the contract price, the report of the board goes on to say: “That there is no chargein the bill for thesevessels for rebracing the boilers: that the causes of delay in building the hull and machinery of the Onondaira wereon account of exensive alterations and also the sauces a ply to ie Chenango and Ase utnc: that he was relieved from the time of his contract or this vessel.so far as regardstime of completion, by the extensive enlterntionsorderedto bemade, and that the Dept was fully satistled that she was fin ishedassoonas possible.” This entire contract forbuilding the machinery of these vessels, the Clienaugo and As. but ney and for the hull and machiner of the Onondaga was taken together, asl understand; and the report of the board covers in this passage the entire 3 icces of work. The oss of Messrs. Quintard Company was $20,000, shown by the evidence, upon good work, the nality of the work not questioned anywhere. The board finds that their loss upon this particular machinery was $29,000. The amendment proposed by the Senfrom Iowa will reduce the allowance to a little less than 10,000 dollars. So where there was an actual loss. as proven before the board ond it is not questioned anywhereof $29,000, the bill. as amended on the motion of the Senfrom Iowa, proposes to allow a little less than 10,000 dollars. Mr. President, the machinery for the chennngo and for the Ase utney belonged to aclass of 22 which will be found in the award made by the board; and I wish to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that the machinery there contracted for by these men was of a very much heavier and more expensive character than was supposed at the time the work was commenced. It will be recollected by the Senate that there was great demand for this work at the time. The Government was in a strait for a Navy, and it was impossible at the time the contracts were made to have the drawings and specifications prepared so that the contractors might know exactly what they were to build. I will call the attention of the Senate to the evidence in one or 2 cases merely as illustrative of the class. That there was much more expensive machinery engines and boilers weighing very much more than was supposed at the time it was made is established by the testimony of 12 of these establishments. The contractors for the Mattabesett, the Shamrock, the Chicopee, the Tallapoosa, the Otsego, the Metacomet, the Mendota, the Lenapee, the Mackinaw, the Ose eola, theSassacus, and the Pawtnxet, 12 in all, establish the fact that this machinery was much heavier and more expensive than was supposed at the time the contracts were made. I will refer only to 2 cases. I read from page 33 of the report of the board, in regard to the Mattabesett and the Shamrock: “The contract price was $164,000." “There isnochnrirciuthe bill(unn exed to this record and marked No. 38)for any condemnedmaterial or faulty workmanship, and it shows the actual cost of labor and material, and the hill of extra work shows a profit 0! about 20%. At the t.imeof In in“ these contracts there were no drawlngsfurnished and it was understoodthat the engines were to br ubout the samesize and weight of the class of the Paul Jones, but in reality were of very much heavier weight and increasedsize. which was one of the chief causesof loss to the contractors, over and above the contract price." Now, I call the attention of the Senate to the case of the machinery for the Pawtuxet, on page 21. There the report says: "The excessof cost, over and above the contract Price. was due to the greaterweight of engine than the contractorswere lid to expect them to be, Mr. Isherwood, chief of the BurcuuotStenmEngineerin having assured them that tin y would not exceed those of the Paul Jones class, 374,000 pounds:) whereas the weight of one built by them was 630,000 pounds." Very much above what was supposed by the contracto rsat the time the contracts were made. The trouble was, that at the time the contracts were entered into, or the bids received, the drawings and specifications were not prepared. I presume these men were sufficiently intelli gent in their business to know what would be the weight and expense of an engine in ordinary times if the rawings and specifications were complete; but 12 of these contractors establish in their cases that the machinery was much heavier than was supposed at the time the contracts were made or the bids put in. Although the argument of the Senfrom NewHampshire was forcible against this particular class, and was very favorable to another class, I think this entire class of contractors for the machinery are also entitled to relief. I ask the attention of that Senator to the fact that the average of loss to the men who contracted for the machinery was above $25,000, some $29,000, and some $40,000, but the average was about $25,000. Now the proposition of the Senfrom Iowa brings down the allowance of each one of these men to less than $10,000. The contract price for machinery was $82,000. The Senfrom Iowa has secured on amendment that there shall be but 12%. allowed upon it, which will be less then $10,000, if my calculation be correct. We are toallow less than $10,000, where the losses average above $25,000. of that entireclass there are 2 wherethe loss wasouly between 5and6,000 dollars on each vessel; but. in those cases the parties had the iron at the time, and therefore there was no loss upon the material, but all the others averaged, I believe, about 25,000 dollars loss. When the fact is shown in 12 of these cases that the machinery was very much heavier than the contractors were led to suppose at the time, when the further fact is considered that the drawings and specifications were not prepared, and could not be with the greatest iligence, I presume, in the Dept, so that the parties might know the precise weight and size of the machinery, 1 submit whether this little allowance of 1/3rd of the actual loss is an unreasonable thing for these parties, the contractors for the machinery, to expect at the hands of the Government. It may be, Mr. President, that I am allwron in my views about this; but this fact has be much weight upon my mind: the Government was in a strait; she came into this war with a navy that could not contend with any of the considerable nations of the earth; she had to establish a blockade upon one of the longest coasts in the world, at more points than perhaps were ever blockaded in the world; the Navy Dept had to strain every energy possible, it had to require all these workmen to do its work and when they preferred doing work for individuals rather than going into contracts with the Government they were almost compelled by public sentiment at the demand of the Dept to undertake it. They did undertake it and at In early day. considering the magnitude of the work, they placed upon the ocean n navy that enabled us to defy the Powers of the world. the grandest navy in the world, that makes every port along our coast secure against every hostile Power who may come against it. Is it becoming the dignity and the justice of this nation that these men shall bear a loss in the prosecution of so great a work for the country? For the commanding general that gains a battle we pass a vote of thanks and give a medal; and for illustrious and great deeds in the history of nations mon uments are erected; but for these men that placed upon the ocean a navy that makes our lcoast as secure as it is possible for man to make coast for this at work these men, instead of having n me al, or a vote of thanks, or a monument. are to bear a loss, and some of them to go into bankruptcy. Now. sir, I cannot appreciate the sentiment that requires that these men should bear all this loss. The fact of loss is clearly established. Upon that question no member of the committee had a doubt, no member of the board who examined this question for 5 minutes had a doubt that they sustained the loss, and that they sustained thsloss in many cases because of the interference of the Government; and I submit whether it is becomingin us to let that loss fall altogether upon them. Taking the classes that are objected to by the Senfrom NewHampshire, the get but about 1/3rd of their loss by the bil as it is now amended, and taking the entire class they get not quite, I believe, 50%. of the entire loss; and I submit. if is the pleasure of the Senate to relieve these rties, if we can do it more securely to the government, than by assing the bill as now lmended. It allows but 12%. in any case upon the contract price. My judgment is satisfied that this is below what is right.