The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-01-19
CHECKED IN THE House
Passage of the Cramp Claim Bill
Vigorously Resisted.
Opponents OF the Measure FiIibuster
to Prevent Final and Favorable
Action on 1t - The Charge Made
That ShipbuiIders Would Take I'm
fair Advantage of the Government.

Filibustering was resorted to in the
! House yesterday to prevent the passage
of bill for the relief of William CramI
&c Sons Ship and Engine Company of
| Philadelphia, the object of which bill is
to refer the claims of the Cramps for
losses they allege to have sustained be-
| cause of the delay of the Government in
furnishing armor plate for the Massachu-
sets, Indiana, New York, and Columbia,
to the Court of Claims for adjudication.
Under the rules private bills reported
from the Committee on Claims had the
right of way, but before the regular order
was taken up sundry bills of little gen.
eral interest were disposed of
The House at 1925 went into Commit
tee OF the Whole, with Mr.. Hemenway in
the chair. Mr.. Graft called up from the
private calendar bills for the relief of
Abba N. Waterman; directing the issue of
duplicate of last check drawn by Major
! c. c. Sniffen in favor of the Fourth Ma
| tional Bank of New York City; directing
| the issue of a duplicate of the last check
drawn by Lieut.. Col. E. B. Atwood in ia
vor of Henry l. Breneman, and to issue a
duplicate check to Major William H.
| SoEISSSS, III IdNOT OF +. W mite.
These bills we're ordered by the Com
| mittee of the Whole to be favorably re-
ported to the House
Claims of the Cramps
The Cramp Claims bill was then called
up and its passage advocated first by Mr..
Thropp, then by Mr.. Bingham. and next
by Mr.. Dalzell. 1t was explained by tie
advocates of the bill that the Cramp Com
pany contracted to build the New York,
Columbia, Massachusetts. and Indiana
under plans and specifications prepared
by the Navy Department. In those con-
tracts were fines and penalties for the
non-fulfillment of the terms of the con-.
tracts-such as failure to deliver the YES
sells complete within the time named in
the contracts, failure to have the speed
tmaximum}, failure to have the proper
material and workmanship etc.
premium was agreed in the contracts to
be paid for speed obtained over and above
the maximum spsed required by the con-
tracts. Partial payments were to be made
upon these vessels as the work progressed
A bond was required and given, to re-
fund to the Government all partial pay
ments made upon the vessels If the ves-
sells should not be accepted by the depart
ment upon the final trials. as coming up
TO the requirements of the contracts In
quired the Secretary TO deduct from the
partial payments made upon work done
the sum of 10 per cent of each payment
to be held as additional security. and not
to be paid the contractors until the COM
pletion and acceptance by the Government
of the vessels.
In the cases of the Indiana and Massa-
chusetts this 10 per cent retained from |
the partial payments amounted to several |
hundred thousand dollars. The depart I!
ment, 1t was said, was not able to furnish |
the armor, as the contracts s. ecifed, when |
the Cramps needed it for these vessels /
The Cramps were subjected therefore, it |
is claimed. by reason of this delay, to /
largely increased expenditures, such as |
insuring these vessels for the benefit of |
the Government, occupation CT the |
roofing of the vessels to keep
them from damage by the elements stor-
age of materials, watchmen's salaries,
etc. The Cramps needed funds to pay
these largely increased expenditures
caused by the Governments delay. They
applied to the department for the payment
Of the 10 per cent which the department
had withheld from the partial payments
for work done. and offered to give an adj
1itional bond for the amounts, agreeing
10 refund these amounts TO the Govern
nent If the vessels were not finally COM
)leted according to the terms OF the con-
tracts.
Attack on the Bill.
Mr.. Bartlett called the attention OF Mr.
Bingham to one provision in the bill which
he said looked little unusuaI-diferent
from a proposition to refer a claim to
court to be tried by the ordinary rules Of
law. Here in the bill itself" he said,
I'VE undertake TO prescribe rules Of law
which are to be followed by the court in
lg %
court shall determine whether duress was
used or not. Why should such provision
IS that be in the bill? II the court Is to
determine the case upon its merits then
t ought to be left to apply the ordinary
rules OF law applicable to such question.
do not think this case ought to be de-
ermined by any other than the ordinary
rules of law applying to similar cases.
The bill seems to contain an unusual pro-
Vision, provision going beyond the simple
reference of the case to the Court Of
Claims for s!le purpose of determining the
merits of the question at issue between
he Government and the clfE.1ant."
Mr.. Rabb was recognized in opposition
C the claim bill. He said. in part: THE
:laim is for damages resulting from al
eyed delays on the part of the Govern
nent in furnishing armor plate and other
material for the construction of the yes
els. The damages are itemized as follows:
On account of the New York, S2l1 Ols.3l; ON
ceount OF the Columbia S192, 235 70; on account
# the Massachusetts. s4sS, 757.4g; on account OF
he Indiana. s4so,2sl90.
II believe that it is plain that these
lelays were in part, at least. occasioned
~ certain changes which were made by
he Government under the direction of the
Secretary of the Navy. But my recollec-
ion is that the contract entered into with
bese parties provides expressly that no
lain for damages shall be made by the
on account of any changes that
night be made on the part of the Gov
.rnment In other words the contractors
'ecognize the right of the Secretary of the
Navy to direct certain changes to be made.
md expressly provided that no claim for
damages should be set up by the con- !
FACTORS against the Government on ac- {
cunt of such changes. {
Now, this matter having been referred
o the Secretary of the Navy under the act
~ which he might report to Congress I
whether in his opinion II was subject to {
he jurisdiction OF the Court OF Claims in
making his report to Congress he express c
y calls attention TO the memorandum of S
greement made with the contractors in
of the contracts for the con- I
tructior OF the Indiana and the Massachu- -
etts. Now. the memorandum or contract r