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 engi neer in charge.

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 upon which payments 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 how 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. În 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.

Question. Where do they reside?

Answer. Dixon, in New York; Beals, in Maine.

Question. What is the business of the men who are doing the work. Answer. Beals is a practical quarrier and stonecutter and contractor for granite; Dixon was formally merchant, now contractor for stone. Question. What was the cost of the fence, also of the flagging?

Question. Do you remember from what appropriation they were paid for?

Answer. From the Treasury appropriation and appropriation of $15,000 made for removing a wall from the President's grounds, and which was afterward s transferred to Treasury appropriation. Question. By whose authority was it transferred?

Answer. By act of Congress.

Question. Who disbursed the money for Treasury extension?
Answer. Mr. Clark.

Question. Do you know if they gave any security?

Answer. They did not, as no payments were to be made until the work was completed.

Question. Are you or have you been acting as disbursing agent for any contractor for the government?

Answer. I have received and paid out money for Beals & Dixon. Question. Have you received a compensation from them for so doing?

Answer. I have in no shape received remuneration, except by the use of their horse.

Question. Did you go to the wharf and superintend the reloading of the stone?

Answer. I did occasionally.

Question. Did or did you not have a general care and superintendence of their business?

Answer. I did not.

Question. What amount of money passed through your hands and was disbursed by you for Beals & Dixon?

Answer. Over $100,000.

Question. Did you disburse this money to his superintendent alone? Answer. I disbursed to their superintendent and such other of their employés as he directed me to.

Question. Who accepted the buttress caps?

Answer. Their acceptance was consummated, when the settlement for them was made, by the acting engineer in charge. Question. Had they not been previously rejected?

Answer. Not to my knowledge.

Question. Do you know if they were ever countermanded?

Answer. I have no personal knowledge of it, and there appears none on the record of the office.

Question. Do you remember what they were to cost in the rough? Answer. About $34,000 each.

Question. Do you know what was paid for the buttress caps in the rough?

Answer. $5,500 each.

Question. Did you advertise for proposals for the marble floor of the south portico?

Answer. The competent manufacturers of such work being few in number, it was advertised by circular letter, addressed to different manufacturers. A synopsis was made of their offers, and the lowest one accepted.

Question. Do you remember how many marble mantels there were that have been bought without advertising?

Answer. I think all were bought without.

Question. Have any been made out of materials belonging to the government.

Answer. Most of them.

Question. Who has done that work?

Answer. The first two by Mr. Parry, then two or three by Mr. Rutherford, and the last ones by Mr. Bradley.

Question. Do you remember that you paid for any of the work? Answer. I think from $50 to $100.

Question. Were they put up by contract?

Answer. Yes, private contract; so much apiece.

Question. Has or has there not been complaint in the department at the work not having been done by contract?

Answer. Yes, sir; in the case of Parry.

Question. Do you remember how many cubic feet of old sandstone columns, cornice, &c., were sold?

Answer. I never sold, but in one instance, a single block, and the money was paid to Mr. Clark.

Question. Have you ever had any interest in the Treasury extension ?

Answer. No, sir.

Question. Have you ever received any money for any of the contracts for building the Mobile custom-house?

Answer. No, sir.

Question. Is Mr. Clark a practical engineer?

Answer. I should not think Mr. Clark was a practical engineer. Question. Has the Treasury building been materially changed from the original plans?

Answer. They were changed by Mr. Guthrie. The rooms were made larger, and the general design of the exterior was adhered to, but the windows were altered.

Question. Were the caps and cornices over the doors more elaborately worked than was originally intended?

Answer. Yes, sir.