Mr. HENDRICKS. When this subject was before the ComNavAffrs, it was referred by the chairman to the Senfrom Nevada, [Mr. Nis] the Senfrom “estVirginia. [Mr. Wii.i.nr] and myself, as a subeommittee to investigate it, inasmuch as the amount of detail could not be understood properly by the whole committee considering it together. We gave it a great deal of attention at different periods for more than 2 weeks, investigating the subject as thoroughly as it was possible for us to do; and we came to the cone usion that the bill which we have reported was right. I believe that the ComNavAffrs concurred in that view, with the exception of the distin uished chairman. I am of the opinion that these sums ought to be paid. as a matter of justice and right. by [he lovernment to these contractors. Each case, of course, has its special merits or demerits. But, sir, I believe in the doctrine that when a man contracts to do a great and very important What are they allowed in work for the Government he ought not to be allowed to be a large loser, and in some cases, as will be the result here, to be broken up by the contract that he may have made, and especially in the case of contracts made at sue a time as these were made, and for such a work as they were made; I mean, of course, where he acts in good faith. These contracts, it will be observed, were made pending the war. I submit to all Sean tors whether it was possible for a party making a contract with the government in the months of August and September, 1862, to anticipate the enormous rise in labor and materials? For work that must of necessity run through a number of months, was it possible for the contractor to anticipate in the making of his contract with the government the enormous advance in materials? Senators may say that the contractor takes his chances. Ordinarily, that is so. If a man contracts to furnish 1000 head of beef cattle or 1,000 mules to the Government, he oes at once and fills his contract. He has no itheultyin doin it. He knows what the contract price is, and what the costin the country will be to him, and he goes at once within one or 2 months and fills his contract, and it is all over. But this is a very different case. Here are men contracting with the Government for the most important work possible; a work that could not in the nature of things be completed within a short period, a work which of necessity must cover from 6 months to 2 years. What was the history of those 6 months or 2 years? Senators know Very well that there was a great difference of opinion in the country at that time about the probable effect of the increase of the currency and the progress of the war. Man thought that prices would de preciate instca of advance. Many very good traders in the country believed that; and it is reasonable to suppose that these contractors, in making their contracts and fixing theirpriccs with the Government, believed that prices would not materially advance. But it is known that the prices did advance. we had to have these ships; the Government could not progress in the war without them; and great numbers had to be manufactured or contracted for at about the same time. What was the effect of that? The Government made a contract with one man, then with another, then with another, and started her own ship yards with all the force that it was possible to command. What was the effect otPthat? Of course, to increase the price oflabor; of course, to increase the price of material required in the construction of the ships. These are some general views about the equity of these claims, without reference to the particular merit of each case. I have a little to say in reply to the Senfrom Iowa. In the 1st place he says, and that is his main objection, that this is an omnibus bill. He thinks that some of these claims are clearly right, and for the sums, perhaps, that arementioned in the bill, but that it is an omnibus bill, and a meritorious claim may carry through a claim that is not meritorious. Mr. President, how is it possible to have this otherwise than an omnibus bill? Is it contemplated that Congress shall take the accounts, from each shop, and examine the accounts of each particular claim, and pass a bill for each case? We cannot do that. The Government never undertakes to investigate cases in that way where they are all of a class. These parties were before congress, and the ComNavAffrs at the last session reported a general bill to refer the whole subject to the Navy Dept totake evidence, to hear the case of each one, to adjudicate each case, and to pay what should be found just and right in the judgment of the Secretary. But that bill did not pass; it was reported near the close of the session, and then this resolution was adapted by the Senate. I admit, as is suggested by the Senfrom Iowa, that this is not a JtResolution; it is a resolution of the Senate. It is in these words: " Resolved. That the SecyNavy be requestedto organize a board. of not less than 3 competent persons whose duty it shall be to inquire into and determinehow much the vessels of war and steammachinerycontracted for by the Dept in the years 1863 and 1863cost the contractors over and abovethe contract price and allowance for extra work, and report the same to the Senate at its n ext session. None but those that have given satisfaction to the Dept to he considered." That is theresolution that was adopted. That resolution of necessity connected t lese cases together. All the cases that were before congress at the last session, under that resolution of the Senate, went to the Dept; and although it was not a JtResolution, although perhaps in law the Deptwss not bound to obey it, yet, out of courtesy to the Senate, out of respectto the judgment and will of the Senate, the Navy Dept did organize a board. The Senfrom Iowa objects to that board. He says they were very competent and skillful men on board ship, but he doubts whether they were very competent to investigate questions of this sort. Is it not enough. in reply to the Senator, to say that this hubject was to some extent committed to the discretion of the SecyNavy? Congress wished a fair adjudication, and the Secretary was expected to organize such a board as would make a thorough and satisfactory investigation of the claims;and the Secretary, to carry out that purpose of the Senate, appointed this board, and the presumption is that be selected men fit for the position. I believe the Secretary would do that. I have avery considerable respect for the SecyNav, and I do not think he would select men not qualified to make the investigation that the Senate requested. The 1st member of the board is Commodore Thomas O. Selfridge. He is a commodere in the Navy. I do not know what his past history has been. I suppose the Secretary did know, and selected him on account of his qualifications for the place. The next is ChieflEn gineer Montgomery Fletcher. I do not know anything about his qualifications; I am not acquainted with him; but the fact that he is a chief engineer is very considerable evidence that heis a qualified man. The last is Paymaster C. H. Eldredge, of whom I know nothing personally, but presume he was qualified fort e work. This board went to work. It met in June and continued its sessions in the city of NewYork until the month of December. Half a year was occupied by the board in making these investigations. The Senfrom Iowa says that they made the investigations and their awards upon exparte testimony, and that there was no testimony substantially except the statements of the parties themselves. I understand the fact to be that the parties came before that board with exact an accurate copies of their books, showing the expenses for everthing, the least and the greatest. I have no doubt about that; because we have before the committee now a claim that was prepared to go before this board, buewas not finally submitted because the board ha then adjourned, and I saw from that case, as it was prepared, that everything that went into a ship, from the least to the greatest matter, was stated. But the Senator is mistaken in supposing that there was not important testimony in addition to the claimants themselves, as will appear by reference to page 29 of the report of the board. There it will be found that S. M. Pook, naval constructor, an officer of the Government, is called upon and testifies quite fully. His testimony runs over to page 30 and page 31. On page 54 the Senate will find the testimony of naval constructor B. F. Delano. I will not undertake to read his testimony, buthe is asked: “Be pleased to statethe relative value and work manship of the several wooden double end vessels contracted for in 186:2and 1863, which were equipped from this yard. "A newer. There wasno material difference perceptible to a ship builder.” 61c and he goes on and gives rather elaborate testimony. He ays he was the inspector of the work. Other parties, in no way connected with the claims, were examined before that board.