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

Now that has been very well answered by tue senator
from New Hampshire, blr NeRkIs II is shown from
the report OF the committee that this original memorial
gotten under The supeflnendence ana 1ieeoh u
one OF these officers OF the government and Il was na'u-
raj that the government officer should wish, as nuch a
possible 10 throw the blame of their shoulders, or
the shoulders OF the government TO the shoulders OF
the contractors. When these parties saw the mistake
of they corrected IT, IA they had right 10 do
| The other objection urged by the senator from heh
lucky Mr. USDERwooDl is ihls-that, by the contract
these 10 have the stone delivered " NE is'
10Th OF june and the architect resigned about Inc as OF
MAY; but that the resignation OF the architect taxing
place before the lime liked Tor tue completion OF
this contract therefore no cause why the
should give them relief But sir, II is sci form ana iuy
sustained by proof the report that these men wei aoe
to have completed their contract by the ION OF june !,
that they had force sufficient TO deliver all the stones y
the tenth of June but that they prevented ron 40
ing il by the action OF the government officers themselves
II was alleged by these officers that there was not room
enough around the custom house Tor 'lese STONES 10
stored away and al their instance the delivery was ais
continued And it is also stated 10 The report hat during
the whole time these contractors were Ia deiaui' ohH
single day
| These being the only two objections, aud The fact be-
ing fully and conclusvely proved that IN consequence OF
the resignation OF the architect and Of the failure on he
part of The government TO furnish them WIN tue aiheh
sons by which the stone was to be cut there mos. cel
tanly arises case for relief
The senator from Pennsylvania Mr.. BRoDHEApl
states that the very rare IN which the govern.
menl should be made responsible Tor damages
confess that cannot see the justice OF that doctrine
cannot see any why the government should not
be made as responsible for damages for breach of
tract Individual And am very certain that II Tins
case before court the jury would not hesitate any
longer than to make calculation OF damages 10 render
verdict in favor of the claimants. This calculation has
been already made out by the officers OF the Treasury De-
par, men and the case now comes before us upon the re-
port of the conptroer and upon testimony furnished by
the itself because both the report oil the COM
mtee and OF the comptroller based testimony taken
at the instance OF the government According to my rec
oecton-and have not read 1t for some weeks--not a
single witness introduced by the claimants All the
witnesses brought forward at the instance OF the
government and is upon the statement OF The govern
men officers, and OF men brought there by the govern
men that both the reports have been made. II this
is TO be rejected therefore, see in having a
committee. ! no use in going TO the expense and
trouble of taking testimony ii testimony ard reports OF
committees thus 10 be lightly dsregarded and thrown
aside upon the suggestion oil senator's made without rel
| Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. President, dislike to rise
to speak upon subject when have not looked into it
for three four years All that can say in reference
to this is that when | was member OF the Com
mtee OF Claims, and Investigated this matter, came TO
the conclusion that there was no foundation Tor the
claim
ticed by my friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. BRoDHEADl
nor believe, by any that have spoken, which wish TO
bring TO the notice OF the Senate When this claim was
FIRST presented stated by the senator from Pennsyva
MA there two reports at all events, and perhaps
three, made against it. recollect two distinctly. The
ground was then changed, and the new aspect OF the
case that then presented was that owing the de-
fault OF the government these individuals had been OBJ
sruced in the execution of the contract their part,
that they could not deliver the rock even quarry and
the rock properly In consequence OF that they were
compelled 10 keep hands, and horses, and ORLEANS, and
CARTS idle The claim according to my recollection, rests
upon position in which these contractors thrown,
in keeping hands, horses oxen CARTS and things of that
sort, idle in the city of New York The allegation is,
that they could not work because the patterns not
furnished and that consequence oil not being employed
they ha4 TO keep their men and teams idle Now, want
to suggest this idea Ii these persons could not obtain
employment from the government. and II they could have
got employment in the city OF New York from private
individuals it their duty not to have remained idle
but have kept their and teams a, work Accord
ing 10 my recollection, they stated that they were weeks
and months in this condition doing nothing and the dam
age which they claim is for this loss OF time while their
men and their teams were lying idle. But, ii recoect
Alright there is no testimony upon that point, and The Off
OF the government, my opnlon were greatly at
fault not asking questions IN regard to II OF the wit
nesses. Could not these men have found employment
in the city of New York for weeks and months, Were
they bound TO fsaIn idle all the time II they could
have found employment II their duty TO get 1t; and
then having received wages OF those who employed
them, they had right TO charge the government for
that time IT. by the action OF the government they were
thrown out OF employment, and then il became necessary
to keep all these hands, and all these oxen and horses
dle they obliged all the time 10 feed their oxen
and horses, and pay their at their expense,
there ought TO be some testimony directed 10 that point
But as remarked at the outset, | dislike to speak
upon subject, when have not examined Il Tor years II
this matter could be allowed 10 lie over for few days
think could give you exactly the state OF all the facts
And though have great many things 10 attend to, u
duty BY looking into IT, hope, then, 1t may be post
poned.
| Mr. NORRIS | hope not we will only have all
these arguments over again.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Ii is a house BILL and | will
agtee to call up before the close of the session,
we can act upon il. No injury result from
posponemen OF it. If it a Senate bill il might be
necessary to pass il in order that the House should
have time TO act upon IT.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the senator sub
nit motion
Mr.. UNDERWOOD. move 10 postpone il 10 this
day week
Mr. WADE hope it will not be postponed. | do
not think il ought to be- Ii was up three weeks
ago, and alter occupying almost entire day post
poned at the instance OF gentlemen who wanted lime lc
examine it. | do not think there will be any more Ugh
thrown upon the if It'll postponed week than we
have at this time.
My recollection OF the testimony very different from
that OF the from Kentucky in regard the rea
claim for damages. And in regard to testimony touch
ing the point which he says is not inquired into, think
he is also mistaken undertook TO examine that atte
very closely, and if am not very much mistaken, i
will be found that testimony directed TO the very
point of inquiry which the gentleman from Kentucky
, has suggested to wit: whether these men and ihes.
teams, &c, could find employment in the city OF New
York And believe the testimony is very positive that
they could not.
But then the claim for damages is founded upon the
fact that the delay the part OF the government post,
poned the work until winter and the proof is that no
business could be done, and they obliged keeI
all these preparations ON hand during the winter. The
testimony very clear that the work could not be per
formed The condition OF the road was such that the
stones could not be hauled in the winter lime.