tress caps for the south wing of the Treasury extension were procured?

Answer. Not when the contract was made or the caps delivered, but I occupied the position when they were put in place.

Question. Were you in anywise interested in the contract?

Answer. I was not, either directly or indirectly. I had no knowledge of the bid until after it was accepted. In short, I had nothing whatever to do with them prior to the placing. I think both of them were delivered while I was chief clerk.

Question. Can you tell us what was to have been their cost in the rough or dressed and in place?

Answer. The rough stock cost $5,500 each; the hammering, cutting, and moulding cost $1,967 70. The cost of placement I can only state approximately, as the work was done by day's work of laborers, who were variously employed under a master rigger, who is now dead. From an examination of the pay-rolls of that period and the record of materials used, I am of the opinion that the cost of placement was about $300 each.

Question. What did the buttress caps cost the government? State fully the manner in which the cost was arrived at.

Answer. The buttress caps for the south wing of the Treasury extension, two in number, are each in one piece, eighteen feet eight inches long, seventeen feet six inches wide, and one foot nine inches thick, and were delivered under the contract for granite, made after advertisement with Beals & Dixon.

The letter of my predecessor, Major Bowman, to the Secretary of the Treasury, advising the acceptance of Beals & Dixon's bid, recommended that the caps should be of one piece. I now file with the committee a copy of that letter, upon which the contract was awarded and the stones ordered.

The act of August 31. 1861, (Statutes at Large, vol. 10, page 93,) make it the duty of a sworn measurer to measure the stone delivered under the contract.

Upon the delivery of the caps they were measured by the sworn measurer appointed for the purpose, and found, (under the clause of the contract, which provides that for the rough stock of stone, of greater width than three times their thickness, an additional price of twenty-five per cent. for each additional three inches in width shall be paid,) the rough stock of each stone amounted to $34, 104 57.

It has been mooted by some experts that this clause of the contract was susceptible of a geometrical application and solution. I think clearly it is not; but if completed geometrically, it would amount to $144,273,924 36.

This amount, found due by the computer, of $34,104 57, Major Bowman refused to pay, alleging that, prior to the execution of the contract, Mr. Dixon, one of the contractors, stated that the buttress. caps, under the contract, would amount to something less than $2,800. Mr. Dixon admitted this allegation to be a fact, but said that he was ignorant of the details of stone work, and made the computation in good faith from the best information he possessed, and he then sup

posed that it was correct, but subsequently he ascertained that it was an error. He further alleged that this fact was of no consequence in the settlement, as the conversation was some days prior to the execution of the contract, and the minds of the contracting parties might have changed many times in the interim.

His partner, Mr. Beals, insisted in settling upon the "letter of the bond," and refused to receive anything short of the contract price of $34,104 57. Major Bowman still refused to pay.

In this position I found the matter when I was placed in charge. Upon a careful examination of the whole subject, I found the department legally liable for the entire sum of $34,104 57, inasmuch as that was the only result made by the sworn computer under the written contract, which was made some days after the conversation alluded to, as no evidence, written or parole, of a foregone date could change the contract, though it might be legally used to explain any obscurities in the text. In this case there was no obscurity; it was a clear and definite matter of computation, without any generalities or indistinctiveness.

I so represented the case to the then Secretary of the Treasury, and suggested to him that although the government was legally liable for the whole amount, yet in view of an implied and measurably honorable and equitable obligation on the part of Mr. Dixon to furnish these caps for about $2,800, and in view of sundry minor matters of difference between the contractor and Major Bowman, which could, at the same time, be adjusted, a compromise might be effected which would do no injustice to the government, and under the circumstances might be considered reasonable by the contractors, on the following basis, viz to first ascertain how much these caps would amount to under each original bid submitted in competition with Beals & Dixon, and then pay them the amount, or a fraction less than the amount of the lowest of these bids. In this way the government would get the caps at least as low as they would have got them from any other bidder, and the contractors would probably get pay for their labor bestowed in quarrying and delivering here.

After a careful personal examination of the whole matter and all its details, the Secretary adopted the suggestion.

The sworn computer found that each of these caps, under the various bids, amounted respectively as follows:

These were all the bids submitted for the caps, and $5,680 92 being the lowest bid submitted at the letting, I offered, under the Secretary's

authority, to pay the sum of $5,500 as a compromise payment. This they at first refused, alleging that the stones cost them more than that to quarry and deliver, but after some negotiation and some personal arrangement between the copartners to the contract, by which Mr. Beals (who was not a party to the computation of $2,800,) became reconciled. They adopted the compromise, and this sum of $5,500 was subsequently paid to them for each, in full discharge. This will appear by the vouchers on file with the Register. The settlement also bound them to deliver the caps for the other wings, in case they should be ordered, at the same price.

FEBRUARY 17, 1862.

Committee met. Present Lazear, Kelley, Chamberlain, and

Wall.

Examination of Clark continued.

Question. You have stated the cost of the buttress cap. Could not they be produced by workmen in several pieces?

Answer. Certainly.

Question. What would have been the cost if they had been in smaller blocks?

Answer. If the caps had been in three pieces they would, under the contract, have amounted to $1,432 02. If they were made in four pieces they would have amounted, at contract prices, to $737 47. Question. Would they, in your judgment, have been equally durable if made in the pieces you speak of?

Answer. They would not have been as durable, because the contraction and expansion of such large pieces of stone would have opened the joints, admitting water, which, in freezing, would have thrown them out of place.

Question. Did you advertise for the granite work for the enclosure of the south wing?

Answer. It was not advertised for, because we had some of the stones on hand which would answer for the capping, and I had applied to quarry owners and found they could not furnish me from their quarries stones large enough for the piers. I therefore bought them. of the original contractors for the granite, Beals & Dixon, who had them on hand. The size of the piers was determined by a plan of the supervising architect, which was approved by the President in writing.

Question. Do you know how much the granite cost for the enclosure spoken of?

Answer. I think about $15,000, which covers the rough stock, hammering, and dressing, and delivery on the ground where it was to be put in place.

Question. Can you say from what appropriation it was paid for? Answer. It was paid from the appropriation for the continuation of the treasury extension after there had been carried to the credit of that appropriation an early appropriation of $15,000 for tearing down.

No.

and rebuilding the wall around the south part of the President's house this appropriation having been so carried by direction of the Secretary of the Treasury.

Question. Who was the then Secretary of the Treasury?

Answer. Howell Cobb.

Question. Do you know if there was any legislative transfer of the balance of this appropriation?

Answer. The legislative authority was found in, or is inferred from, the act of Congress, 18th August, 1856.-(Statutes at Large, vol. 11, page 86.)

Question. What law, if any, governs the advertising for these proposals?

Answer. We have been governed by the act of Congress approved May 2, and by the opinion of the different Attorney Generals.

Question. Was the iron fence and stone lagging advertised for? Answer. They were; they being advertised for and the granite not advertised for, under the direction and approval of the Secretary of the Treasury.

Question. What was their cost?

Answer. The outside fence was awarded to Hayward, Bartlett & Co., and cost, with the gate and all set in place, $1,923 12. The inside fence was awarded to W. T. Duvall & Co., at $1,126 57. The stone flagging was also in two parcels; to Gault & Bro. was paid $4,611 84, and to E. D. Bigelow, $2,454 35. These prices for the flagging do not cover the placement. They were cut and delivered on the site, and placed by days' work of laborers.

Synopsis of proposals for iron fence and gates for the Treasury extension. opened October 10, 1860, at one o'clock p. m.

I hereby certify that I have this day opened the above bids, numbered them according to this synopsis, and marked them with my initials, in the presence of A. B. Young, supervising architect, and T. A. Curtis.

P. CLAYTON, Acting Secretary of the Treasury.

A. B. YOUNG, Supervising Architect Treasury Department.
T. A. CURTIS.

This bid was received October 11, at 9 o'clock, the envelope being postmarked October 8, 1860.

T. A. CURTIS.

Small gate.

123456

Synopsis of proposals for materials for the approaches to the south wing of the Treasury extension, opened October 2, 1860, at 1 o'clock p. m.

No. Name of bidder.

Belgian.

Laying pavement.

Curb.

Dressed flagging as per sample.

I hereby certify that I have opened the above bids, numbered the papers in accordance with this synopsis, and marked them with my initials, in the presence of A. B. Young, supervising architect, T. A. Curtis, and sundry others.

A. B. YOUNG, S. A. T. D.
T. A. CURTIS.

S. M. CLARK,

Acting Engineer in charge Treasury Department.

No guarantee.

Question. What was the business of Mr. Young?

Answer. He was supervising architect of the department.

Question. Can you tell me the cost of the desks occupied by Mr. Young and yourself?

Answer. I cannot. They were made by days' work under Major French, when he was in charge of the treasury extension. Proposals were invited for them, and the lowest bid being $200 each, Major Bowman declined to build them, when Major French said that he could build them by days' work for a much less sum, and thereupon Major Bowman directed him to build them.

Question. Do you think they cost more or less than the lowest bid. for them?

Answer. I am quite confident they cost more.

FEBRUARY 18, 1862.

Present: Lazear, Kelly, Wall, Chamberlain, and Perry.

Examination of Clark continued.

Question. Can you tell how many mahogany cases are in your bu

reau and their cost?