Imatges de pÓgina

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 Aagginadvertised 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.

[blocks in formation]

I hereby certify that I have this day opened the above bids, nuen bered 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,


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.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

OCTOBER 2, 1860. 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.


Acting Engineer in charge Treasury Department. A. B. Young, S. A. T. D. T. A. CURTIS.

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 bureau and their cost?

Answer. There are four; the cost I cannot state, because they were made by days' labor, and the work not continuous on any one job.

Question. When were they finished or put in place ?

Answer. I should think the last one was finished about one year since, to the best of my recollection.

Question. When were they ordered ?

Answer. I should think the first one was begun as much as two years before the last one was finished.

Question. Can you say what number and amount of suspended claims have been passed since you have occupied your present position?

Answer. I file herewith a list of claims (and their amounts) upon which payment has been recommended by S. M. Clark, acting engineer in charge. Names.

Amount claimed. Amount allowed A. Lybrock, Richmond, Va....

$2,016 00 $2,016 00 F. Costigan, Indianapolis, Ind.

22,783 74

6,124 37 Trenton Manuf. Comp'y, Trenton, N. J. 70,775 57

33,020 91 Beals & Dixon, New York

92,783 74 33,567 02 J. Smiley, San Francisco

519,445 79 *292, 268 50

[blocks in formation]

This list does not include the claims upon which no allowance has been recommended, as their inclusion would not be responsive to the question.

Question. Was any, and if so, what, amount of stone was rejected because it did not come up to the required standard ?

Answer. The supervising architect reports to me that none have been so rejected while I have been in charge.

Question. Do you know if any marble or other material which had been rejected as unfit for use in the New Orleans custom-house has been received or settled for; if so, what amount?

Answer. Nothing, so far as I am aware, has been so received or settled for while I have been in charge, and no such transaction of any magnitude could occur without my being ultimately made aware of it.

FEBRUARY 19, 1862. Present: Lazear, Kelly, Wall, and Chamberlain.

Examination of Clark continued. Question. Is the original plan for the Treasury extension being executed; and if not, in what does the departure therefrom consist?

Answer. A more complete and responsive answer to this question than it would be possible for me to make from memory can be found

• This amonnt includes an allowance by the local commissioner of $237,830 29, leaving the total allowance by S. M. Clark of $129,166 51.

in the written reply of my predecessor to a similar question from a former Congress, a copy of which I will hereafter file with the committee.-(See close of testimony.)

Question. Have accounts in this connexion been passed and settled in which the demand exceeded the estimate and measurement ? Answer. In no case whatever. All the vouchers


pay. ments have been made to these contractors have, upon their face, the written certificate of the sworn computer since I have been in charge.

Question. What will have been the cost of the extension when complete?

Answer. My estimate of its cost, including the south, west, and north wings, fitted ready for occupancy, is about four millions of dollars.

Question. The south is already finished; what has it cost?
Answer. About $1,200,000.

Question. Can you tell, approximately, the amount already expended ?

Answer. I cannot tell exactly. The total amount expended up to the 30th of September, 1861, was $2,106,993 59, which includes the cost of all the granite for the exterior walls of the west wing, and for some of the iron and brick for the interior walls of that wing. There has been expended, since September 30, 1860, up to this date, $61,011 53, making a total expenditure, from the first breaking ground, to date, of $2,168,005 10.

Question. Is any other portion of the extension than the south wing completed ?

Answer. No other portion is entirely completed; some of the basement rooms in the west wing are in an advanced stage of progress.

Question. Can you say bow much is due as retained on the several contracts for materials and workmanship furnished and done?

Answer. Between $18,000 and $20,000.

Question. What amount of the several kinds of stock and material, prepared and unprepared, for the extension, have you, and where is it?

Answer. On the 30th of September, 1861, there was on hand, on the site of the building and adjacent to it, 4, 180 tons of granite, costing $359,982 ; 317,210 bricks, costing $3,690 30; and about 84,591 pounds of cast and wrought iron, costing $5,09 38; the entire value of materials, machinery, teams, tools, &c., on hand at that date was $390,157 03. There are no materials belonging to the Treasury Department, or paid for out of its appropriation at any other place.

Question. Is the work under the several contracts being executed in a satisfactory manner?

Answer. The small proportion of the contracts now in course of execution are being executed satisfactory to me.

Question. Have the several contracts to the extension, thus far, been faithfully executed ?

Answer. With the exception of two contracts, they have been. The exceptions being the contracts for a portion of the iron-work of the basement story, made with John A. Gandel, of Philadelphia, and the

H. Rep. Com. 137_2

contract for the iron balustrade of the interior stairs of the south wing.

Question. Have the officers of the Bureau of Construction, and those engaged on the Treasury extension, discharged the duties of the several positions with fidelity ?

Answer. In my judgment, some of them have not.

Question. Will you indicate the instances in which you think there has been a want of fidelity?

Answer. I think there was a want of fidelity on the part of Mr. Claxton, one of the early assistant superintendents of the Treasury extension, and also on the part of Major French, my predecessor's assistant, since deceased.

Question. How long has Mr. Claxton's connexion with the work ceased.

Answer. I think it was in 1857.
Question. Was it by dismissal, or otherwise ?
Answer. It was by dismissal or a request to resign.
Question. Did Mr. Claxton follow on other official duties?

Answer. I think he was subsequently appointed consul to a Russian port. I cannot positively state the time of the appointment, but I think it was within the year after his connexion with the work ceased.

FEBRUARY 24, 1862. Present : Lazear, Kelley, Wall, and Chamberlain. A. B. YOUNG sworn and examined: Question. What position do you now occupy? Answer. As assistant superintendent on Treasury extension. Question. How long have you occupied that position ? Answer. Since February 28, 1861. Question. What salary? Answer. Five dollars a day.

Question. Do you get any additional salary as supervising architect?

Answer. No, sir.

Question. Was the granite work on the southern enclosure of the Treasury extension advertised for?

Answer. No, sir.
Question. What was its cost?
Answer. About $14,000.
Question. Was the fence and flagging advertised for?
Answer. They were.

Question. Can you tell us why the southern enclosure of the Treasury extension was not advertised for?

Answer. We thought it for the best interest of the government not to do so.

Question. Who were the builders?
Answer. Beals & Dixon.

« AnteriorContinua »