The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-03-27


what was binding. | know enough OF public law 70
know that the government is not legally bound py any
contract The enforcement OF that conlral neisiVie oy
legal means against the government IS an npossDnily
A SENATOR Is not that cheating about the bush =
MI BADGER No. il is not beating about the bush al
all The gentleman asks question without understand
log the proposition before the Senate. affirm that the
government was bound Sin faith and honor"-hat is
what said and over again--as much as ii the
tract had been signed and say the other party bound
in faith and homer much ii the contract had been
signed Certainly il you can escape from the obligation
in this because there Is OF coeTcing the
government. then the government cannot be bound in
any Tor II the contact had been signed upon
both parts The government would have been bound only
IN honor, and the opposite party bound in law.
But the senator IRON Pennsylvania MIR. BRopHEADl
says that Congress al the last session did not soemny
alleged contract" Now, that presents very curious
idea An alleged either exists or il does not
exist. Iii exists then may be abrogated; but If
does not exist should like to know how am abroga.
ton apply TO it, II there was no contract you can
not abrogate contract Therefore, as there was an alb
rogaon the thing abogated must have been contract
But the person in the House of Representatives who
drew the provision thought he particularly smart in
not estopping the government and giving these parties
these contractors, legal advantage the govern
ment, aud therefore he put IN the word alleged" But
the senator says il soienny abrogated Now there
was little solemnity in that act OF abrogaon there
was in anything else The truth is that the two
houses OF Congress. instead OF taking up the reports of
the two Naval Committees, and settling the matter upon
the principles OF these reports did nothing OF the kind
These PROVISIONS were sprung upon u.s. attached TO the
appropriation bill and passed here in the hurry OF the
last hours OF the session Tie truth is, Also that the
provisions contradictory that il is difficult TO make
anything out OF Them But this Senate intended
to abrogate the contract They passed an amendment
TO prevent that effect but the confusion attendant upon
the last night of the session. not engrossed and
hence the bill passed without it,
But further. as was about saying when the senator
from Pennsylvania [Mr BRoDHEADl interrupted me-
this government cannot enter into any contract
cept with the parties with whom this contract was made
IL therefore, this basin and railway be constructed
they must be constructed by contract with them alone
They have patent rights with halt dozen years
pred The government cannot, according to what is
Justly characterized the honest report of Secretary
Mason, invade patent right It is not Of those
ment and put this matter out to the lowest bidder be-
cause no person has right construct this
work but the owners OF this patent right. Then why
should not enter into it! Ii is said by the report of
the Naval Committee, made by the senator from Vir-
gina, Mr. MAsoN] that they unable to discover
that the contract could be altered arranged be
more fair and reasonable and advantageous the gov
vernment :han that which had been stipulated And I
Will venture TO say that, ii think business
transaction OF this kind worth looking into and will
anime the report OF The Secretary OF the Navy and
the process OF examination and investigation by the bu
reaus and chief engineers time and again. and repeatedly
for the purpose Of ascertainng what was the lowest
that could be reasonably allowed and after all this
the striking down OF their estimate by the Secretary of
the Navy Of some $4,000 or 100000, they will then be
satished that no process be adopted by which this
work. it IS TO be executed at ALL be obtained upon
better terms.
have said that the dock is already contracted for
Inc only question is as 10 the basin and railway; and
upon the grounds have stated. me very clear
that we cannot do better than pursue the
which was entered into at the last session of Congress-
and authorize Its honest completion by passing the bill
upon your table. Now let me occupy the Senate
ment, II can command the attention OF some two or
three around me, by calling their attention report OF
the Secretary OF the Navy order that they may the
kind OF competition that has been nterposed and the sort
OF applications that have been made by persons who
were exceedingly anxious TO obtain this contract In
letter written by the Secretary of the Navy to Messrs
Ballard and Mason, two OF the applicants he relates this
circumstance:
You mistaken in the you solicited
70 bid Tor this contract by On the contrary
informed that If Dakin and Co. would accept
should propose after full examination and consideration,
thought there alternative bur allow them the
uact and you may remember that In reply this in
payment OF certain which you alleged were due
from Mr. Dakin you, and answered that had pow
er over that subject, but the of justice would
donbt afford the proper relief
The propositions presented by you through Mr.; Baker
were far less detailed and definite than should feel bound
TO require before closing contract had been at liberty
Another gentleman claiming the exclusive right to the
patent for the sectional dock the Pacific made
ha & az pa Ss
partment TO Dakn and Co unreasonable the
ply cheaper construction which would answer the pur
pose aPprehend you will find, upon careful examna
uon That you have been under like mistaken impression
in your estimates"
Now, will ask the attention of the Senate TO the kind
OF proposals made by Messrs Ballard and Mason as
great deal has been said about these proposing do
this work Tor less money than this contract is for find
here in this report OF the Secretary of the Navy the fol-
lowing;
Mesas. Ballard IL Co propose take the contract for
building the sectional drydock, basin, and railway the
of the Navy Messrs Dakn & Moody-lhat is 10 take
them for the same icel-Messrs. b. a. Co, being
considered the servants of the government the
protection OF the principle of the right OF the 10
use pnenees Invention for necessary public purposes
upon just compensation"
These propose do the work for the same money
that The department proposed 10 give TO the patenees
lie consequences OF invading the patent rights or, in
oher words Tor the same money that the pateniees agreed
TO do the work for, il the government will pay such fur
ner sum as VIII be necessary TO indemnify them against
the consequences OF invading the patent right
MIR. Ihomas--a gentleman who claimed an inter
est Tor the original paenee, denying the assignment TO
Messs Dakin Co.. the Secretary siatesmade his prop
osition TO do this work for three hundred
thousand dollars less than agreed upon by this con-
him at his department, and informed him OF the ma.
terials out OF which the department required this work
TO be constructed and he (Mr. Thomas) said once
that he intended 10 get materials of inferior character
and, II the terms OF the department be followed
out the price which had been agreed upon be con
sidered as but reasonable and proper.
lbeheve, therefore, Mr. President, that the this
matter IS looked into the more will be found that the
measure IS necessary both 10 the public and the
cIa marine OF the country In my opinion this contract,
which has already been entered into is binding upon the
ery suspended by the appropriation bill which passed at
the last hours OF The last session OF the last Congress-
and this measure intended 10 re-esiablsh and carry
this contract into effect Now in the first place even