National Republican., 1873-12-02


! uncxpendcd balance OF s3,e6a, 100. .go,) III
! Claims Tor extra aud additional compcnsu
J ilon have steadily diminished and are nos
nearly nominal; aud that, while aitR In th
Court OF Claims wero formerly frequent an,
usually successful, no suit has been brough
! against tho Government for work porforme'
under my administration, and that tho com
paraliye cost Of work has, al the same time
been decreased. Great dlfficulty was for
merly experienced in making contracts fo
material and labor at advantageous rates ant
In enforcing the same. This was particular,
tue case In regard 10 the contracts for eton,
work, which wcrc usually oxtravagaut II
price and the subject Of disputes and litiga
lions which. as rule, resulted adversely Il
} tho Government The experience OF the las
four years has demonstrated that the systeu
recommended by mo In my previous reports,
| aud now In operation on the public buildings
At New York, Boston, Chicago st. Louis, aud
on the new state, War and Navy Depart
Inents building IN this city, and popnlarly
known as the percentage system, Ia the lair
est and most equitable yet devised as the
basis for contracts In which labor Is the prln-
clpal factor, and Ia which the quality OF the
work Ia determined BY the amount Of labor
expended, or which cannot be accurately
| specified. or, as q consequence, exactcd. such
| as stoue-cuttlng, plumbing and other similar
| work; and II has proved. In spite Of the pre-
| dlctions, misrepresentation and clamor of
| Interested parties, to be the falrest aud most
| economical system for such contracts that
has been devised. Prior to the adoption Of
this system such contracts were the inevitable
and usually prolific sources OF controversies,
claims and protracted lltlgations, In many
| Instances the claims amounting to more than
the original contract, while the work was, rs
rule, unsatisfactory In character aud ex-
trayagant in cost In this connection few
Illustrations may possibly be Of Interest.
The custom-houscs at Buffalo and 0swcgo,
New York, were erected, under contract by
.. H. and o. s. Latham. The itcm OF cut
stone work for both buildings amounted to
but s5i,OGo. The former building was, how
ever, subsequently, extended, which increased
the value OF the cut-stone work, at contract
prices, 10 sGo, l2l 60, which was accordingly
paid, but failed to satisfy the contractors,
who applied TO the Court Of Claims for relief,
oasing their claims on the following allcga-
lions: That they were the lowest bidders for
the custom.housc ut Buffalo, and as the stone
submitted with their proposal was unsatlsfac-
tory TO tue Department. that they voluntarily
agreed to furnish tho same stone that was
offered by tho next lowest bidder, Nc. G. A.
Jones, OF Rochester, New York, (whose bid
was but SIC, 2g3 in excess Of theirs y that In
executing their contract they found the stone
In question wns harder to procure and more
costly aud difficult to work than the stone on
which they based their bid that their con-
tract did not require them n lay the stone on
the qharry-bed, Qhongh 10 did require them
to lay and cut IL 20 the satisfaction Of the su.
perintendcnt y that they were required to
hnish Portion OF the stone with patent axe
work, and that the ashlar in the rear Of the
building was changed from random to spe.
CHIC lengths. Tho Court OF Claims, after q
protracted Investigation, allowed them the
additional sum Of S31, ,301.69, their equitable
right to which may be Inferred from the ro
marks OF Chief Justice Casey In referring TO
this award, on q subsequent occasion, in
which he used the following language, =
ave have carefully considered the addi-
tional testimony submitted by the claimants
on the subject OF an allowance for q change
OF stone on the ground Of representations al.
legged 10 have been made by Major Bowman
70 the claimants at the time of tho letting oi
the Buffalo house. The evidence has failed
TO Convince us that the claim Is well founded.
Inc conversation detailed took place between
Major Bowman, Mr.. Latham, and Mr.. C, A,
Jones, aud II Is impossible to say whether
Mr. Latham, In agreeing to adopt the PENN
suia stone, acted upon The opinion OF Major
Bowman or Mr.. Jones, or, discarding both.
was guided by his own Judgment In the pre-.
mises. Nor Is 1t Of any moment to inquire
how he arrived at his conclusion. II was
wei known TO Mr.. Latham that Major Bow.
man was public officer, having specific du.
Ties TO perform and limited powers to exer-
else, and that II came neither within the
range OF his duties nor the scope OF Ills autbor-
ity to furnish Information 10 bidders In reia-
uon 10 the cost and facility of obtaining the
material out Of which the building was 10 be
constructed. II the bidder sought for It from
HIN, or he voluntarily gave 1t, whether true
or not, could affect the Government no more
than the same representations made by any
other individual.
I'VE have, too, the singular fact that on
the 9Th OF April, 1855, after the claimants had
procured large quantity of Peninsula stone,
and had considerable quantity of 1t cut and
dressed for the Buffalo house, they entered
into u contract for building the Oswego
custom.house. II 1t was difficult to procure
and expensive to work, they must then have
been fully aware of these facts. They had
also been informed the previous September,
by the superintendent, that they would be-
required to lay this stone on the quarry. bed.
Taking all the circumstances together, we
re unable to lnd anything In this record TO
support the claims for an allowance for
change OF stone upon tho ground Of fraud,
Misrepresentation, or mistake. II we were
~ follow the opinion and theory OF the wit
nesscs of the plaintiff alone, Il would result
In an award for the claimants, according to
the statement presented by their counsel, as
Items alleged to be proved by the opinions Of
their witnesses, OF So5G t0S. 80, This IL
which the claimants originally contracted u
perform, and furnish the material, for
sG9 l2lGO. And this, too, IL will be remem.
bered, without any change having been made
In the size OF the building, the kind or amount
of material, the plan or arrangement OF the
structures, or the general character and style
oil the work, but for placing the same mate
rial In the building In different position, Il
scaling 1t to regular systematic sizes, and
placing on about one halt the exterior surface |
different finish from that provided by the
contracts and specifications. This result is
attained by assuming the speculative values |
OF the witnesses Us the actual cost of the |
work, and deductlng therefrom the amount
received under the contract, leaving the |
difference we have stated above. Upon this |
statement IL will naturally strike any intelli-
gent mind that either the contract price was /
too small or the extras claimed are TOO large. /
4" A number OF the PLAINTIFF principal wit
nesses are rc-examined, and without profess-
Ing or attempting to give any new facts or
data, restate their opinions and calculations
In new phrases and In greater detail. Some
Of this testimony, We are compelled to say, IL |
In q very Objectionable form, consisting oi
Affirmative answers In monosyllables to lead
Ing direct questions, proposing different
aspects Of the general theory upon which the /
case had been previously submitted.
The witnesses on the other side testify that, |
In their opinion, the difference In the two |
modes Of performing the work was but |
triiling, and that few thousand dollars would |
meet the whole expense. When we find /
gentlemen Of the highest skill In their pro-
iessions and trades, and whose characters
stand unimpeached, differing to the amount
Of $3.50. 900 In their estimates and opinions /
upon this case, II must necessarily impair our /
confidence in the value Of said testimony"
This statement OF the learned Chief Justice
shows conclnsively that the award of the /
rourt was not based upon Its convictions, hui /
upon a weight Of testimony which IL could
not legally ignore. The award Of the couri
Jailed, however, to satisfy the contractors
any more than tho decision Of the Depart.
nent, and they appealed to Congress, which
,verruled the decision Of the Court of Claims
md increased :he allowance 10 sI4, $50 81,
which was paid to them on March q, 1863.
Il would naturally be supposed that sGch an
allowance for extras on contracts amounting |
10 eos, l2i. 90 would have satisfied any one.
1t did not, however, satisfy these enterprislng
who returned to Congress with
A claim for s25 625 o, being the difference
between the amount recommended by the
Committee on Claims In the House of Repre-
and the amount approved by the
Committee on Claims Of the Senate and ap-
proprlated by Congress. This claim was, |
however, rejected, and the stone contract
Was supposed To be settled. Such was not |
however, the opinion OF the contractors who