For example, the form of the shafts of the columns of the extension have been changed, with a view, doubtless, to produce, in the judgment of its author, a more graceful appearance than that of the original, but like all such efforts has failed; for, in substituting the irregular curve contour for the straight line, it gives the shafts a swelled, unseemly appearance. Again, the spaces between the antæ, which are plain in the original, are crowded with a medley of moldings of every shape, the separation between the several stories being marked throughout with heavy cornices, the jambs of the windows being moulded to excess, and the material part of the moulding of the base of the antæ continued around the entire building, thus giving the composition a confused appearance, and destroying the effect which the repose of plain surface between the ante would have given to the whole, by throwing out prominently the principle features, the columns, the antæ, and the entablature, had the original plan of the building been adhered to. Again, within the east and west recessed portico in antis, without regard to the classic character of the struc ture, shelves [balconies?] of granite slabs protrude from the walls. at the back of the columns, on a level with the second story floor, and in length to the extent of the recess. Why such unsightly append ages were thus projected is only known to their author; for, however useful a balcony may be to a building for a different purpose and style of architecture, there is neither fitnesss nor elegance in its application to this, and is therefore an excrescence on the recognized standards of adaptation and taste. There are other blemishes of some of the details which I shall pass over.

Question. Were the drawings and other papers prepared in the office of construction and presented to those who desired to estimate for the granite and marble for the extension, under the department's advertisement of the 20th of June, 1855, such as they should have been in view of the extent of the contract and the amount involved?

Answer. The drawings were, as far as they went, but not sneh as they should have been, for they only embraced the columus, anta. entablature, and balustrade; and the bill of quantities was so loose and indefinite, and the quantity required and its value — about $200,000-so small, compared with the amount reported to have been used and paid for, as to render a contract based on such papers worse than useless for the government, and from the evidence now produced but a waste of time for those who estimated and proposed for it under the department's invitation; for it was at the option of the Office of Construction to award it to whom they pleased by simply a change of quantities, dimensions of stock, and style of finish of work.

Question. In what respect does the granite work executed and in progress of construction, differ from the drawings and other papers presented to those who proposed for the granite and marble work in 1855 ?

Answer. The antæ and window jambs are all in one piece, placed on their ends. The transoms which the jambs support are also in one piece, instead of the whole being of plain ashlar bonding in courses

throughout the face of all the walls, as was intended and then understood.

Question. Does the change of the character of the work, by hav ing the antæ and jambs on their ends, give additional strength and permanency to the building?

Answer. It does not; on the contrary, it would be more permanent and better construction were it of heavy ashlar properly bonded, as is the case with the Capitol, Patent Office, and Post Office, and in this opinion I find, from a report-No. 73, page 13-made to the 25th Congress, 2d session, on the Treasury building, that Thomas U. Walter and Alexander Parish, the architects who reported, concur. Question. Have you examined Ex. Doc. No. 96, 34th Congress, 1st session, and Ex. Doc. No. 41, 35th Congress, 2d session, on the subject of the Treasury extension contracts, &c., and if so, state whether the contract was awarded to the lowest bidder as the synopsis of bids of 1855, and results therein contained purports to have been done? Answer. I have, and find on a careful examination it was not. Question. How, then, was Beals & Dixon made the lowest bidders, as shown in Ex. Doc. No. 96, page 4?

Answer. By the Office of Construction increasing the size of the 16,000 cubic feet of rough stock for the antæ from 30 to 330 cubic feet, and other stock, after the proposals were received, and by an incorrect classification of Beals & Dixon's lowest price for cutting (No. 3) the cornice, architraves, caps of columns and antæ, and shafts of columns, (No. 2,) against the prices for cutting in the best manner by his competitors the same amount of material. The difference in the value of this work alone, according to Beals & Dixon's prices, is $21,299, which, added to the aggregate of their bid, $243,556, would make it $264, 855. But it would be further altered, and against Beals & Dixon's bid, making several of their competitors lower than they, by a fair construction of the proposition of J. B. Emery and others for the stock, or by adhering to what the drawings, bill of quantities, schedule, and advertisement for proposals, declare on their face; and such, I presume, will be conceded was the bases and rule that should have governed the computations of the several bids and the awarding of the contract.

Question. To what extent did the change of the 16,000 cubic feet of stock for the antæ from 30 to 330, and finally to 412 cubic feet average, increase the ultimate cost; and what amount was paid for the stock in the antæ ?

Answer. The change increased the cost from $7,040 to $71,933, the amount paid-(see Ex. Doc. No. 41, page 5)-a difference of $64,863.

Question. To what extent did the change increase the proposals of the other bidders for that item?

Answer. The following is a list of the bidders and their prices, with and without the changes; from which it will be seen, from the construction put upon the proposals and the rule of computation adopted by the Office of Construction, that M. G. Emery's bid was increased from $8,000 to $509, 736-a difference of $501,736; and J. B. Emery's

from $7,680 to $426, 159; a difference of $418,479. I have selected these bids, being the highest increase, to show the absurdity of the construction put upon the proposals, and the rule by which these aggregates were determined; for it is not to be presumed that these bidders would make proposals that would admit of such construction and results:

Question. It is stated in Ex. Doc. No. 41, page 8, that "the 49 antæ estimated in the schedule of 1855 were in three stones," but that in 1856 the Secretary of the Treasury authorized their being constructed out of one piece, and approved the difference of costwere they computed in the schedule of 1855 as three stones?

Answer. They were not; but as one stone averaging 330 cubic feet, had they been in three the average would have been 110 cubic feet. Question. What would have been the difference of cost between the antæ in three pieces, as stated they were to be, and in one piece, as constructed?

Answer. The antæ in three pieces would have cost $16,640; whilst they have cost $71,933; difference, $55,203-the cost of the several dimensions of stock being as follows: Maximum quantity 30 cubic feet....

In three pieces, averaging 110 cubic feet
In one stone, averaging 330.... do.. do....
In one stone, as constructed, 412 do.. do...

$7.040

16,640

43,040

71,933

Question. Were the caps for the buttresses of the south portico, the dimensions of which are 18 feet 8 inches long and 1 foot 9 inches thick, the value of the rough stock in which has been estimated by the sworn measurer at $34, 104 51 each, but which Beals & Dixon have settled for at $5,500 each, shown on the approved plan, and were they embraced in the schedule of quantities, price, and amount

of each proposal upon which the contract was awarded to Beals & Dixon, and at what price?

Answer. There are four buttresses on the approved plan, but from an alteration being made in the steps two were dispensed with. Thefour, however, were provided for in the schedule, the average contents of each being put down at 613 cubic feet, and valued at $12,031, or $3,007 75 for each cap. But this price was on the assumption of the computer that the four caps would require 2,500 cubic feet, which would be an average of 625 cubic feet each, and the gross amount of the cost of the four-$12,031-is based on that quantity-2,500 cubic feet. The actual value of the 613 cubic feet, as computed in the schedule, is $2,950 061.

Question. What are the cubic contents of each of the caps on the buttresses, and what the value of each under the contract?

Answer. If the dimensions given me are correct-18 feet 8 inches long, 17 feet 6 inches wide, and 1 foot 9 inches thick-each cap measures 571 cubic feet, and its value, under that clause of the contract which provides that, for rough stock of "stones of greater width than three times their thickness, an additional price of 25 per cent. for each additional 3 inches in width" shall be paid, is $1,958 68. The following is a list of the bidders, and the computed value of the four caps, taken from the schedule in Doc. No. 96, page 10, and Doc. No. 41, page 6, opposite their names:

From the foregoing it will be seen that the amount opposite each bidder's name, in both columns, differs in every case but three, although the amount of stock was the same upon which the computations were made-2,500 cubic feet. According to the rule by which the above results were produced the stock in each of the caps, measuring 571, cubic feet, (the estimate on which my valuation is based,) amounts to $2,574 28.

2

Question. You say that the valuation of the buttress caps under Messrs. Beals & Dixon's contract, (for which they have received

$5,500 each,) is $1,958 68 each. Is that a fair and remunerative price for them?

Answer. I do; and so consider it.

Question. Is there any rule that could be applied, or construction put properly upon the specifications and other papers upon which proposals were invited for the granite to be used in the Treasury extension, and the contract awarded upon to Beals & Dixon, that would admit of their being computed and valued at $34, 104 57 each?

Answer. There is none; and the very idea of the application of a rule that would produce such a result is an absurdity on its face. Question. Do you know Mr. S. M. Clark, who is in charge of the Office of Construction, and what his qualifications as an engineer or architect are?

Answer. I know him only as chief clerk in the Office of Construction when it was in charge of Major Bowman; but never heard or learned, in my intercourse with the office, that he had any knowledge of architecture or engineering.

Question. Have you examined his answer upon the subject of the value of the buttress caps, and the conclusion he arrived at "after a careful re-examination of the whole subject," in which he says that he thought the department "to be legally liable for the entire sum of $34, 104 57" for each cap? You will state, as an expert, if his statements agree with what appears on the face of the papers, computations, and amounts of the several bids, respectively, upon which the contract was awarded and entered into with Beals & Dixon, as shown in Ex. Docs. Nos. 96 and 41.

Answer. I have, and they do not in any material particular; for whilst he gives a list of what he says were all the bids submitted for the caps, with their value opposite each bidder's name, not only does their value, respectively, in every case differ with that in the documents referred to, but he leaves out Berry & Mohun's, Acker & Co.'s, and Edward Hawkes's bids, the latter of which was the lowest, amounting in the aggregate to $1,875 for the four caps, which the approved plan then called for, the one-fourth of which, $468 75, would have been his price for one cap, and no rule could be devised or construction put upon the plans, specifications, &c., that could change the result; for his bid for all stock over seventy cubic feet was seventy-five cents per cubic foot. The following list of three of the bids for the caps, as shown in Ex. Docs. Nos. 96 and 41, and in Mr. Clark's letter, with the exception of Mr. Hawkes's, will show the absurdity of the rule that made one cap value at $34,104 57: