Mr. CLARK. But it is not material to the argument, as I understand. This man says the excess of cost was $41, 027 46 for the two. Now, I want. to call the Senates attention to what appears in regard to these 2 classes of vessels. The contract price for the Agawam and the Pontoosuc, as found on ages 16 and 17, was $104,000, just the same at it was for the Mnssasoit, the Sassaciis, and the Ose eola. The Senfrom Indiana says these vessels were the same class, and the contract price was the some. Now, I want Senators to note the fact that when George W. Lawrence & Co. build the Agawam and the Pontoosuc, they make them cost $17,000 above the contract price; but when Curtis & Tilden build the some class they make them cost only about 9,000 dol are beyond the contract price; and in the case of the Iontoosuc and the Agawam, the engine builders make the engines cost $80,000 beyond the contract price; and in the other case, the Atlantic Works only make them cost $41,000 beyond the contract price. Why that difference? Why should this Government pay one set of builders $80,000 beyond the contract price, and another set of builders. for 2 engines of exuctly the same class, $41,000nh0ve the contract pricc? How happensit, c.Vec itfrom the unskillfulness and the want of diligence on the part of these men in building these engines? and yet this report says pay these Gentlemen at Portland $80,000 be on the price, and pay these gentlemen at oston $40,000 beyond the price. It seems to me, a man had only to delay his work the longer to get the more money, for they give him all he says it cost him; and so the longer he delayed and the more it cost, the more they gave him. Now, Mr. President, I ask Senators to turn to the Chicopee. I have been through the whole range of these double curlers; they are in the same way. I do not want to weary the Senate, but I want to show enough of these cases to let the Senate see what they are about to pass upon. I do not denythat there may be some good cases here; Itiink some of the gentlemen who built the hulls of these yesse ls and were delayed in this way are entitled to the additional expense; but I do not think the men who put on board the engines and loaded them down with delay and deprived the government of them for that extent of time should also be aid for that delav. On page 17 you will fin the statement of Mr. Curtis, who built th“e Chicopee: Appeared before the board Paul Curtis. ship builder. Boston and contractorfor the double under Chico cc. Under oath states. that the contract for the C iiropec was dated by the Navy Dept September 0, 1862.in which he wasallowed 126 days or until January 13.1863" The contracts were all given out at about the same time, and they were to be ready at about the same period “ to launch the vesseland deliver her to the outline buildt rs; but the vessel was not put in the water until March 4.1803.as the engine builders (Neptune Iron Works) were not ready to erect the engines on board." The same excuse again. It would almost seem that these fellows had got this excuse stereoty ed; they all agree upon it. They were de ayed by the engine builders l “ That the vesselwasdeliveredto theNeptune Iron Works March 11. 1863 and they wore a lowed 50 days or until may 1, 1883, to erect the engines on board. but the mac inery was not completedand put on board until April 1, 1864.at which time she was delivered at the navy yard. NewYork.” They were to have had it on board May 1 1863; the did not have it on board until April 1, 1864, O " even months afterward. By which delay on the part of the engine builders he was at great loss. y being obliged to pay larger prices for material and labor to complete the vessel. That the entire cost of the vessel, includ in bill for extra work. amounting to 87.11509.was Si.67461that the contract price of the vessel, de livered inNewYork. Was 875.000 tha the hasreccived from the bureau for extra work. 33.30420; total amount received from Government. 87880420; leaving a balanceof loss to him, over and a ove the contract price and allowance for extrnwork, of618.87041." Now, turn to the table again. Paul Curtis built one of these vessels, taken at the same time, at the same rate, when labor was scarce and materials scarce; the contract price was $75,000, and she cost $97, 674 61, making an excess over the contract price and extra allowance of $18, 870 41; 4 times almost as much as the extra cost price in the case of Curtis & Tilden. Now, we are asked to (pay this, and the committee say this is right an this is fair; and they want to give a%age to the wh ole. I do not see an fairness about it. If it is right that Curtis Tilden should have $4,000 above the contract price, it should be I right that Paul Curtis should have the same unless he shows a difference, and he fails to show any. New turn to psge 44, and you will find the case of the mac nery of the Chicopee: “Ap cared before the board Mr. Willinin Bocrdman. onoo thogoprietors and on the part of theNeptune Iron Wor, contractors for the machinery of the Chicopee and Iallapoosa. Under oath states, that the contract for the vessel waadated by theNavy Dept August 15.1862 in. which theywere allowed 7 months, or 2 months alter the receipt of the bulls from the builders thereof, to completeand erect the machinery on board: but that the Chicopeewas not received until March 11.1803 and the machine wase ompleted and trial trip satisfactorilyconclud on January 23.1864;and the lapoosawas not received it til March 16.1863 and the machine we! complet and trial trip also satisfactorilyconc udod March. 1861;the were relieved by letter from Do pnrtuicrit in regar to the time of completion of contract nor to thesiing of the contract. That the lotua cost of mac inery was. including extra bill of 82, 06575 yet unpaid, 8116.00135; contract price received from Government. 8164.000l;eaving an exccss of cost, over and above the contract price. of 842.00435." 21,000 dollars on each vessel for delaying her at the wharf 11 months depriving the Government of the use of her all through the summer of 1803 and the fall of 1803, the winter of 1863 and 1864 up to April in the 8 ring of 1864; and yet this very nig gardly (royernment, this Government. that is exhorted so much to deal fairly by these Gentlemen, deprived of the use of this vessel for 11 months, comes forward and pays the contract price, pays the full bill for extra work, and then is asked to pay all the enhanced cost by reason of the delay. Is it fair? Is that the kind of liberality you would recommend to your Government to the tax payers? Now, as to a contract between 2 individuals where one stipulated to have a given work done by a given time and he failed forayear to do it. if the man who contracted for the work should come for ward nud take it oil“ that mans hands and pay him the price and say, “Here, you have done the work and Iwill pay you the full price and take it, though I have been delayed, ” would not that be conSidered liberal? Would the man that had done the work ask for anything more? Yet here they undertake to say we must pay not only this individual man, not only this individual firm, but we must pay every one of these 42 right straight through 12%. on the whole contract price, not because they would not be glad to have more, but because they have loaded it so down with the wcight of delay that they know these iron clads will not swim with such a load upon them. Mr. President, I suppose it is hardly necessary that I should go through with case after case of this kind. You may take anyone of these double enders and you will find much the same state of thin s. I cannot say that you will in every case, )ecause I have not examined; I cannot aflirm or deny; but I say that in all the cases I have examined I find this same state of things and now I will ask the Senfrom Nevada if he can tell me where in this report. I shalltind the report in regard to the hull of the Mendotn. as the Senator seen it? Does he know it is there?