Mr. HENDRICKS. I know; but the Sea ator failed to state the further fact that of the $18,000 allowed, $6,000 was for extra work, not within the contract at all not yet paid for; so that upon the Lenapee the board allowed for cost of the work over and above the contract price, only $12,000. Is there anything in that case to prejudice the Senate against the bill? and yet the argument of the Senator was as plausible in that case as perhaps in any other. Now, sir, we will take u the case of the Hendota, on page 31. Nava Constructer Pook was called as a witness, and his testimony will be found on page 31. He testifies that some of the charges made by the contractors for that vessel ought not to be allowed, and, compming the claim made by the contractors with the award of the boar, I take it that those items were not allowed. So much for that case. The next case is the Chicopee on pages 17 and 44. On page 17 it up ears that the contractors for the hull were elayed in completing that vessel by the failure to complete the machinery, as they claimed, and therefore it cost them something more on that account than it otherwise would have cost. Now, let us see what is the claim of the contractors fer the machinery. We will take that case to which the Senator has referred, and I wish to go a little further than the Senator did. 1 call the attention of the Senate to page 44 of the report, as the Senator did, and yet us see whether the argument ought to have all the force that the Senator ives it. He givesitas much force as it is possifile for it to receive. He makes the case thus: the contractors for the hull were delayed in the comletion of their work, and loss was sustained y them, because the machinery was not finished accordin to the agreement of the contractors. N ow, how does the case stand? It a pears that the contract was signed on the 15th day of August, 1862, at the Dept, and the machinery was to be finished in 7 months, 2 months after the completion of the hall. The Chicopee was not received until March, 1863: “ The machinerywas completed isfactorily concludedin January It ought to have been completed in June, 1863, but was not completed until January, 1804. "And the tallapoosa wasnotreceived until March 16.18 and the machinery was completedand trial trip also satisfactorily concludedMarch 12, 1864"ten months after the time limited for the completion of the work. The report goes on to say that the contractors “were relieved by letter from Dept, in regard to the time of completion of contract, prior to the signing of the contract.” I ask Senators how does that come? Here isa bid made; the specifications are not before the bidder; he has no opportunity to know exactly the style of the work; the party goes on with the work; and before the contract is reduced to writing and si ned, a letter of the Dept relieves him mm the time agreed upon. I ask the attention of the Senate to this sentence:. “ They were relieved by letter from Dept.in regardto the time of completion of contract, prior to the signing of the contract.” A differe time was allowed, the Dept becom 1satisfied that it was impossible to complete this work within the time specified, within 7 months: “ That the actual cost of machinery was, including extrabilloi $2, 00575 yet unpaid, contract price received from Government. 8164.000; leaving an excessof cost, over and above the contract price, of $42, 00435. That the excessof cost was owing to the great rise in labor and material and difficulty in procuring the same." I believe the Senator stopped just there; but I will ask the attention of the Senate a little further.