The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-01-25

sell and 10 these applicants 10 stale the grounds OF tue
| conclusion 10 which la order 10 Justify that
conclusion IL is merely necessary 10 state the history OF
this transaction as II occurred.
1t appears that contract was entered into with these
parties think in 1884, for the marble for the basement
OF the custom house In the city OF New York by the
contract these applicants were TO furnish the sione-one
half by the 10Th OF June 1885, and the other hall by the
10Th Of December OF the year-upon the site OF the
custom house, Before 20 further INTO the history OF
the CLAIM however tits hecessaTy TO take INTO consider
alton certain points in the which are proved and
will that nearly all the proof comes from the govern
ment officers Reconsideration the superintendent and
the architect 1t appears that the site OF the custom.
house was surrounded bv business Streets and there
could be but small quantity Of stone hauled there until
II was placed in the building That is thing which
is proved clearly and distinctly There is another thing
proved-namely, that the government was TO furnish
these contractors with the models and forms by which
they should cut the marble III order TO put II lo The
| building.
/ The matter went on well between the government and
the contractors up TO time IN the month OF May.
| ls35-the 22d OF the month, | think. The testimony
Is that up that time the marble was furnished by the
contractors fast necessary AT that time mere
was misunderstanding between the superintendent
(Ihompson) and the government and he leit tue work.
| taking with him all the models and the plans OF Inc
building On account OF that the government had 10 stop
operations, aud the contractors were prevented from
furnishing the stone In consequence OF the resignation
OF Thompson, who had taken away all ihe models anu
the plan for the structure OF the building the govern
ment officers could not 60 on until new plans, and new
models and new forms were framed, and a new super
inlenden, appointed II TOOK nearly loue anon.os pe
from the contractors. They were thus thrown Out OF
employment from the month OF May TO the month OF
September with their hands ana er .ea; s'an Th
idle until the government was able TO start again lhey
had TO wait until new plans and new forms were iuf-
nished by which they were to cut the stone: these
contractors did not complain OF mat al the tne out
when the government got ready in September they went
on and, the evidence OF the superintendent and The
architect shows. they furnished the stone at all times
whenever the government wanted It,
The evidence further is that if they had not been
stopped May, the would have been able
furnish The whole OF the stone during the summer OF
1885 This is the evidence OF the officers OF the govern
ment themselves This is the evidence OF the supern
endent and The architect, that they would have performed
the contract IN full If the had been ready to
receive the stone according to the contract But by rea
son OF this delay they thrown into the winter OF
1885 and 1886, and they had complete their work in
The spring of 1896 They were compelled 10 lie on their
during the whole winter Tor they could not perform
the work in winter time. Il is IN evidence from these
very officers of the government that at first The contract
ors furnished stone faster than was used that they
blocked up the Streets and the officers had 10 send them
word not to bring in stone fast These contractors &C
commodated the government in the whole matter.
And now putt to the Senate upon these iacs--and
have stated nothing but what is contained in theepoii
this is not just and equitable claim No., says the
senator from Pennsylvania. Aud why! Because he says
they come here and base their clam upon different ground
from what they did at FIRST Is not that senator lawyer
Did he have to amend specification declaration
in order meet his case Did his clients always have
sufficient knowledge OF law TO point out TO hun directly
how he should frame the narrative the declaration,
thai he should never be obliged 10 make amendment,
and ask the favor OF The court TO allow II These men
are plain contractors; they workmen they stone
cutters they came here at first and stated that they had
taken the contract too low, and had lost money by 1t
they did take it too low, and did lose money by
it but that in consequence OF the manner In which
the contract performed the par, of the government
and if the government had been ready at all times 10 re-.
the fast it could be delivered, and IL
there had been suspension of the work, the contract
ors would not have been losers. But they did lose
money and the too low, consequence of
the manner in which The government treated Them
think the objection amounts to but very little. Because
man mistakes the of his remedy the first
stance, and afterwards comes before tribunal where he
have equitable decision OF the case he to be told
because he mstook his remedy the hrst instance
he is entitled relief think upon full inves
tgaiion OF the caseif every senator would investigate
it, there would be scarcely dissenting voice upon the
bill. III there equitable clam here, ths, IN
| my Judgment is one. and ought to pass the bill
Mr. PEARCE II is not my purpose 10 repeat the state
mens and Arguments which have been so well made by
the senators from Ohio and New Hampshire but 10
press the hope that the Senate will this bull IL ~
very rarely that claim against the United States so
well and so thoroughly sustained as this Is Ordinarily
we know that the proof which is furnished in support q
claim is given partt but this is not the case here
has been stated BY both OF the honorable senators who
have preceded me- The proof was taken under com.
OF Representatives, with all the guards which the auihor
ties oil the United States could throw around IT, The ties.
timony thus obtained satisfactory, and not only salts
factory bat il is thorough complete, and wheming
II makes out il seems to perfectly clear case as
il is possible for claimant to make out II is manifest
/
the making o their contract, but by the conduct OF the
agents and officers OF the United States by the failure oil
the United States 10 comply with their part OF the con
tract; by their nerposng delays and difficulties IN the
execution of the contract by these men. All this j,
proved conclusivey by testimony not parfe, bu
taken under the authority OF the government think ths
| this makes out a case such do not in
hundred times and if this claim be not passed, unde
such circumstances it 10 me II will be in vain fol
any claimant TO expect Justice.
i Mr. BRODHEAD. l have but a word TO say in re
ply to the senator from New Hampshire. Mr. NORRIS
| This case investigated by the Committee OF Caim
during the Last Congress, and alec during the presen
Congress. In the Committee OF Claims OF the last Con
gress the senator from Kentucky entertained the SAM
opinions in regard TO this claim that now do tie di
ered from the honorable senator from New Hampshire
kben upon IT, When IT came before that COMMITTEES at TIT
II session OF this Congress, my friend from Ohio ant
| myself differed in regard to IT.
j My observation and experience, as member OF thu
| Committee OF Claims, have taught me to believe tina
whene yer into contract with this govern
ment, if he does not make large sums OF money, he II
sure to come TO Congress and claim compensation 10
damages on account OF malversaton mafeasance OF
the part of the officers OF the government The govern
ment is always in the wrong
i Now. when these gentlemen first came TO Congress
they presented their case, believe, truly They were
not in technical court OF law. as The honorable sena
from New Hampshire seems 10 intimate. They were
not in a court where they might mistake their remedy
and where their declaration was required to be exactly IL
the shape required court OF law They were before
Congress- and not before court OF law and when they
/ first came here have doubt they told the truth
had the contract too low,