2d Session.

No. 137.

EXPENDITURES ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

JULY 10, 1862.-Laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. SARGENT, from the Committee on Expenditures on Public Buildings, made the following

REPORT.

The Committee on Expenditures on Public Buildings, who were instructed by the House, upon the resolution offered by Mr. Wall, December 19, 1861, to inquire into the probable cost of the Treasury building extension and Capitol extension, the manner in which the work is done and being executed, and whether the original designs are being carried out or not, and whether the several contracts pertaining thereto are being faithfully performed, and also whether the same objects cannot be attained with less expense to the government, and also whether the officers of the Bureau of Construction are, in the judgment of the committe, qualified to discharge the duties thereof properly, and whether they have done so or not, and that said committee investigate and report to this House such facts in relation to the several matters referred to as they shall deem proper, and that they have power to send for persons and papers," report:

That in the discharge of the duties devolved upon them they have given to the subjects named in the resolution such attention as has been possible under the exacting demands of public business during this laborious session, and herewith report the testimony taken by them, and certain documents bearing upon the matters investigated. Many witnesses the committee desired to examine it was impossible obtain, they being scattered by the pending war. But the testimony procured has enabled us to report with confidence upon several questions submitted to us; and to the rest, if desired by the House, we will address ourselves on a future occasion.

From the testimony submitted to the House we think two things. are painfully evident: First, that there is extravagance in the expenditure of the public moneys in constructing public buildings; second, that the buildings thus constructed, however strong and imposing to the inexperienced eye, lack the thoroughness and abiding strength that should characterize such structures; that while the gov ernment is caused to pay out sums of money that should procure for it buildings of the most solid and durable character, ignorance or corruption, perhaps both, imposes upon it gaudy and expensive structures deficient in the most essential elements of excellence.

For evidence of the extravagant expenditures of public money under the Bureau of Construction, as now and heretofore organized, we refer to the testimony in relation to the Charleston custom-house and the Treasury Extension. A single item relating to the former will illustrate the system by which a building about one hundred and fifty feet long by one hundred and twenty feet wide from outside to outside of the columns, and carried some forty-five or fifty feet above the ground, entirely unfinished, roofless and bare, has already cost the government over two millions of dollars, and half a million more asked for by the acting engineer, without any intimation that it will do any thing more than "continue the work. At Hastings, N. Y., Edward Learned & Co. carry on the business of quarrying and cutting marble. A contract was made with them for the marble of the Charleston custom-house-a contract so indefinite and confused that any construction could be put upon it, even the style of architecture being misnamed, and the material being changed from granite to marble after a previous contract had been made with the same parties. In January, 1861, after South Carolina had seceded, Learned & Co. notified the Treasury Department that they had certain material on hand, and claimed inspection and payment under a clause of the contract. Mr. Clark, the acting engineer in charge, to whom the matter was referred by Secretary Dix, whose letter we herewith submit, went to Hastings and returned with a schedule of material there to the amount of $43,061 60, which he and Mr. Young, the supervising architect. reported to be correct, and the sum of $32,296 20, or seventyfive per cent. on the whole amount, was paid out on it; that is to say, $28,382 70 in cash, and $3,913 50 allowed by the contractors for a previous over-payment. Mr. Clark, in a letter to the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, dated February 12, 1861, states as the result of "a careful resumé of his notes, after an official visit” to the quarry, that he found "a large quantity of marble in every style of progress, from the rough block to the elaborate carved ornamental work, ready for shipment," and he thinks "its total value would not much, if any, exceed $100,000." Desirous to ascertain if this large quantity of marble was really at Hastings, the committee sent there Mr. Oertley, the government computer, an officer in the Bureau of Construction, and Messrs. Hamilton and Claskey, practical stonecutters and architects. There was a perfect concurrence between these gentlemen upon their return. Their testimony shows that the marble on which Learned & Co. was paid at the rate of $43,061 60, the schedule of which will be found in the testimony of Mr. Young. was worth at a fair market price from $9,000 to $12,000; that all the marble outside of the schedule, even at the rate of price named in it, could not exceed $10,000, and, as Mr. Oertley said, at a liberal market price would be worth not more than $6,000. By the testimony of these gentlemen it seems that the government, under the auspices of Messrs. Clark and Young, have been paying $5,785 93 for capitals that, cut in Italian marble, would not be worth more than $1,000 or $1,200; that upon the item of capitals alone, as shown particularly by Mr. Hamilton, the government pays $295,081 92 for

what would cost at a fair market price $51,000, or an excess over the value of $244,081 93.

The exact responsibility of the enormous prices paid for these capitals is shown by the following extract from the testimony of Mr. Young, the supervising architect. We do not hold the Secretary of the Treasury responsible for these extravagances, for he must rely upon the acting engineer and supervising architect for information as to the value of materials, and also as to the features of contracts made in their department, unless he continues in office incompetent or dishonest men after his attention is called to their true character.

"Question. Who made the measurements for the custom-house at Charleston of the marble now lying at Hastings?

"Answer. I did.

"Question. Did you make it from drawings, or from the materials? Answer. From drawings.

เ

Question. Who furnished those drawings?

Answer. The Treasury Department.

"Question. What officer in the Treasury Department made them? Answer. Myself and the engineer in charge.

"Question. What amount of stone is now at Hastings ready to be moved?

"Answer. The stones at Hastings now ready for shipment are capitals of corinthian columns and antæ of very elaborate detail and finish, wrought in strict accordance with full sized models furnished by the Treasury Department, and as per invoice are worth when delivered in Charleston $43,061 60, upon which there has been paid $28,382 70, being seventy-five per cent. of their value when finally delivered at Charleston as per terms of contract, less $3,913 50, an ascertained error in the account of March 20, 1857.

Question. Who made the report to you of the quality of material at Hastings for the Charleston custom house, which the government has settled for?

"Answer. Mr. Clark, the engineer in charge."

By a reference to the schedule contained in the testimony of the same witness it will be seen that the government has paid for a piece of marble, for the mere rough stock, four feet nine and one-half inches by two feet and one-quarter inches and four feet nine and one-half inches, the sum of $650 07, and for the carving of it $1,572 19, and the piece when completed is not a capital, but only a piece of one. This expenditure so vastly disproportionate is attempted to be justified by the terms of the contract, but by the contract as quoted by himself, for all carving or ornamental work such additional sums shall be paid as the superintending architect, or the duly authorized agent of the first part, (the Secretary of the Treasury,) shall ascertain to be its fair cost, increased by fifteen per cent."

Admitting that the enormous price for stock is justified by the terms of the contract, and if so, the supervising architect should have warned the Secretary against such extortion upon the government; yet it cannot be admitted that the "fair cost" of the labor upon a

block, which at most was the third or half of a capital, is $500 more than the market value of an entire capital, stock, labor profit, and transportation.

The late day in the session in which this report is written precludes its being much more than an index to the testimony. But under this head of extravagant expenditures the committee call attention to the evidence relating to the prices paid for granite and work on the Treasury extension. Thus the contract was varied so as to have the antae constructed of one piece instead of three, with mouldings at top and bottom, which carry cost to the whole, and make them cost the government, per superficial foot, $12 40, or many times the cost in three pieces or in ashler work, while a frail, insecure structure is the consequence. By the terms of the contract it is the interest of the contractors to have the stones enlarged, while it is the interest of the government to have them small, both as a matter of cost and strength. The antae in three pieces would have cost $16,640, whilst they have cost $71,933 in one. The law of Congress required that the style of the old front of the Treasury on Fifteenth street should be followed in ornamentation and otherwise; yet the whole of the west wing is a mass of expensive ornamentation, finding its parallel, probably, in no granite building in the world, but all adding to the profit of the contractors and the expense of the government. Attention is called to the extravagant price paid to the contractors for the buttress caps of the south portico. There were four in the original design, but two are dispensed with. For these caps Mr. Clark recommended to the Secretary, as shown by his testimony, the payment of $5,500 each, upon the ground that the government was liable for $34,104 51 each, and he further represented that $5,500 was the lowest price bid for those caps by any bidder. Mr. Oertley, the government computer admits that the rule whereby said stones could be made to cost, under the contract, $34, 104 51, is a monstrosity, and Mr. Claskey calls it an absurdity on its face. Yet Mr. Clark gravely used it as an argument for the allowance of $5,500, and also declares that that is the lowest bid by any person for them. Yet it appears from the schedule in Doc. No. 96, page 10, and Doc. No. 41, page 6, that Edward Fawkes bid for the four buttress stones, $1,875. or $468 75 for one; so that the statement that $5,500 was the lowest bid was most remarkably incorrect. But by the same authority it will be seen that Beals & Dixon, the contractors, bid less than that amount, as did several other bidders. As shown very clearly by Mr. Claskey, the true valuation of the buttress caps under Beals & Dixon's bid was $1,958 68, and that was a fair and liberal price. The committee hesitate to characterize this transaction. Perhaps a partial explanation may be found by reference to the pages of his own testimony, which relate the preparatory training he had for the business of engineering all the public works of the United States. We are fain to be charitable enough to believe that the explanation is to be there found for his action in both this matter and that at Hastings.

A great wrong is done to the governmen and to bidders by the

loseness in which proposals for government work are advertised for. Thus, in the work for the Treasury extension, which will cost the government as now prosecuted at least $4,000,000, if it does not reach $6,000,000, no schedule of quantities was given to accompany the proposale, and bidders were thus kept in the dark, while the opportunity was given to award the contract by any rule of construction the Bureau of Construction might give to it. That such a system tends to frauds no one can deny. We do not charge fraud in this instance, for we have not the evidence of it aside from the fact that we believe that Beals & Dixon were not the lowest bidders by any fair construction of the bids. As to the manner of advertising for bids, we call attention to the following, from the testimony of Mr. Oertley, the government computor:

"Question. Were you one of the computors who determined the quantities and values of the several bids in 1855 ?

"Answer. I prepared estimates which, I think, were used in making out the award.

"Question. Did you pass upon, and find Beals & Dixon's the lowest? "Answer. Yes.

Question. By your interpretation of the proposals and bids, did you find Beals and Dixon's the lowest?

"Answer. The superintendent decided the meaning of the proposals, and I had to follow his interpretation.

Question. Was there a schedule of quantities given to accompany the proposals?

"Answer. There was not.

Question. Was it not necessary that there should be a schedule of quantities in order that bidders might bid understandingly?

Answer. In my opinion it was.

"Question. Did not the publication of proposals without a schedule of quantities, give an opportunity to those who interpreted the proposals and bids, to vary the quantities so as to give the contract to any bidder they saw fit, by requiring larger or smaller stock?

Answer. Undoubtedly it did.

"Question. Was it not the duty of the architect to publish such a schedule in order to prevent such favoritism?

Answer. I think it was.

"Question. Who was the architect?

"Answer. Mr. Young."

A system of building and contracting thus carried on does not need that the agents be dishonest to be ruinous to the principal. We can conceive of no excuse for the supervising architect for such neglect of obvious duty to his employer-the government. By varying the sizes of stock after the bids were received, and by construing the terms of the bids, Beals & Dixon were declared the lowest bidders, against Emery and others, who were really lower bidders. If there is any doubt upon this point, we refer to the careful analysis by Mr. Claskey, and the public documents referred to.

Under the head of extravagance, if it did not more properly come