Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1888-04-06
court Of claims for determination certain

court OIL claims Tor determination certain
demands made by them against the gov
eminent on account of. the constructor
of two irop-clad monitors-the Sauando
n Nanset--and q side-wheel steamer
the Schuelter. The construction OF the
vessels began in 1868, and it was agreed
that they should be completed within six
or eight months. Tt was provided that
the government should have the priv
lege of making alterations and additions
to the plans and specifications at any
time during the progress of the work,
and that ii these alterations should cost
extra expense to the contractor the gov
ernment should pay for the same at a fair
and reasonable rate. 1t is thus that
the time allowed for the completion of
these vessels was, with the assent of
contractors, made exceedingly short;
that Notwithstanding this fact they CON
sented to permit such alterations of the
plans as must necessarily prolong the time,
and they fixed their measure of compen
sation for such alterations at a favorable
and reasonable rate. The president sub
mits his objection to the bill with the
following remarks:
sit seems then that the contractors
mentioned in this bill, after entering q
contract plainly indicating that changes
of plans and consequent delay in their
work were In their contemplation, ayailed
themselves of the remedy which they
themselves had provided, and %therenpon
received about 80 per cent. In the case Of
two of these vessels of the contract
price for extra work, giving the govern
ment n receipt In full. When soon there
after opportunity was offered them to
make a further claim efas broad a nature
as they could desire, they failed to do SO
and one of them disclaimed any right to
recover on account of ONE of the vessels,
though all are now included in the pres
eut bill. In 1867, the claims were fully
examined under a law of congress, and
rejected, the supreme court In an exactly
similar case finding neither law nor
equity supporting them. II it be claimed
that no compensation has been yet al
lowed solely for the increase in the price
OF labor and material caused by delay. in
construction, it is no hardship to say
that, as the contractors made provision
for change of plans and delay, they must
have taken the risk of such rise in price,
and be satisfied with the provision they
have made against IL. Much OF the en-
tire increase of price of labor and ma
terial is included in the extra cost, which
has already been reimbursed to them, but
the bill does not provide that these con
tractors shall be limited in the court OF
claims to recovery solely for
loss occasioned by increase of ! the
cost of labor and material during the de.
lay caused by the government. BY the
terms of the proposed act the court is di.
rected to ascertain the additional cost
necessarily incurred in building the YES
sells by reason Of any change or altera-
lions in the plans and specifications, and
delays in the prosecution of the work.
This, 1t seems to me-, would enable there
contractors to open the whole question
of compensation for extra work. 1t
hardly seems fair to the government to
permit these claims to be presented after
q relapse Of tw~enty-three years, since
a settlement in full was made, and re-
ceipts given. after the opportunity which
has been offered for establishing further
claims, If they existed, and when, az q
consequence of the contractors neglect,
the government would labor under great
disadvantages in its defense. / am OF the
opinion, in view of the history of these
claims and the suspicion naturally exoit-
ed as to their merit, that no injustice
will be done il they are laid at rest, In
stead of being given new life and yiGor
In the court of claims.
[Signed. "GRovER CLEvELANJ.n