2d Session. No. 146. ELIZABETH COLE, WIDOW OF LEVI COLE, DECEASED. [To accompany bill H. R. No. 569.] JULY 12, 1862.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. DUELL, from the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, made the following REPORT. The Committee on Revolutionary Claims, to whom was referred the petition of Elizabeth Cole, widow of Levi Cole, deceased, submit the following report : The petitioner prays to be placed on the pension roll under the act of February 3, 1853, on account of the revolutionary services of her late husband, Levi Cole, deceased. It appears from the evidence upon which the Pension Office granted Levi Cole a pension, under the act of 1818, that so long ago as the 20th of May, 1818, when he applied for a pension, he was a respectable resident of the city of Washington, living with his family, consisting of a wife and two children-the oldest 15 years, and the youngest, a little girl at school. His services, character, and identity were established by the certificate of Benjamin Page, an officer under whom he served at Charleston, South Carolina, in 1779, and the affidavits of some of the most respectable citizens of Washington. It further appears that after the death of his wife he married again on the 6th of April, 1830, Miss Elizabeth Simmons, and that they lived together as man and wife, at Annapolis, Maryland, until his death, January 8, 1846; that at the time of his death he was a pensioner under the act of 1818, and afterwards his wife, the present applicant, as his widow, received the balance of pension due to the day of his death. The marriage, death, identity, and continued widowhood are clearly shown by a certified copy of the publication of the marriage, extracted from the Maryland Gazette of the 8th April, 1830; the certificate of the orphans' court of Anne Arundel county, Maryland; the affidavits of respectable witnesses, and the evidence that the treasury paid her the balance of pension due, being satisfied of these facts by other evidence exhibited then. From the evidence, your committee are satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to a pension under the act of February 3, 1853, and report a bill accordingly. 2d Session. No. 147. OBADIAH B. LATHAM AND OLIVER S. LATHAM. JULY 15, 1862.-Ordered to be printed Mr. FENTON, from the Committee of Claims, made the following REPORT. The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred a report and bill from the Court of Claims for the payment of an award made by that court to Obadiah B. Latham and Oliver S. Latham, have had the same under consideration, and report: That the Messrs. Latham were the contractors for the erection of the new custom-houses at Buffalo and Oswego, New York. The contracts were in writing, and respectively bear date in July, 1855, and April, 1856. The exterior of the buildings is of Peninsula sandstone from the State of Ohio, and they are of a superior style and workmanship, and very costly. They were completed to the entire satisfaction of the government about four years ago, and have since been used for the purposes for which they were constructed. The Treasury Department, under whose direction the buildings were erected, required the stone-work to be performed in a manner not provided for by the contracts. It is proved that the departure from the contracts was in this particular wide and essential, embracing changes in the mode of quarrying, breaking, cutting, dressing, finishing, and setting the stone, and in each of these matters greatly increasing the cost of doing the work. These changes were made against the repeated protests of the contractors, and with the distinct and reiterated notice to the Treasury Department that if they were compelled to do the work in the manner required they would regard and treat it as an abandonment of the contracts, so far as concerned the stone-work, and should expect to be paid therefor, not according to the contract prices, but what the same was fairly worth. In the face of these protests and this notice, the Treasury Department. nevertheless, required the contractors to go on and finish the buildings in the manner stated. After the work on the building at Buffalo had been commenced and pretty well advanced, the Treasury Department, by virtue of a joint resolution of Congress, determined to enlarge the building beyond the dimensions provided for in the written contract by increas ing the length twenty-five feet and the height three and a half feet. This increase, it will be understood, was wholly beyond and in addition to the dimensions named in the written contract. Besides this increase in length and height, the department at the same time made many other alterations in the interior arrangements and a few in the exterior arrangements of the building. For the construction of these enlarged and altered parts of this building there was never any express contract entered into between the government and the Messrs. Latham, except in regard to some comparatively small items, which are not now in controversy. Negotiations in regard to prices were kept up for nearly a year, the government offering one sum, and the contractors demanding another and much larger sum. In the meantime the work on this part of the building went on under the supervision and direction of the Treasury Department, and when completed was accepted and has since been used by the government. While this work on the enlarged and altered parts of the building was being executed the Messrs. Latham gave the Treasury Department to understand that they should not hold themselves bound by the offer of the department as to the value of this work, nor be bound by any of the prices in the written contract for the original building, but should expect to be paid for the whole work on this part of the building what the same was worth. In the face of these declarations, the Treasury Department nevertheless required the Messrs. Latham to go on and finish this part of the building, which they did. When the work on the two buildings at Buffalo and Oswego was about being completed, the Messrs. Latham made a specific demand upon the Treasury Department for payment therefor beyond the sums fixed in the contracts. The then head of the department, Mr. Cobb, decided that the manner in which they had been compelled to perform the stone-work was beyond the requisitions of the written contracts, and that upon that and some other items they were entitled to increased compensation, but the department had no authority to make any extra allow ances. It may be stated in this connexion that in addition to the items of claim already mentioned, the Mess s. Latham demanded payment for damages occasioned by the delay of the work at Buffalo, growing out of the enlargement of the building. They insisted that the Treasury Department delayed active opera tions upon it for a period embracing some three months, which was a serious loss to them. They also made claims for some other items of extra work, &c.. upon both the buildings, which comparatively amount to a small ag gregate, and about which there is no serious dispute. Failing to obtain redress from the Department, the Messrs. Latham instituted proceedings in the Court of Claims in June, 1859. They prosecuted their case with all diligence. The testimony taken is very volummous. After a full and elaborate hearing, (the government side of the case being sustained by three able counsel,) the whole court decided in favor of the claimants upon all the points in issue. The members of the court differed only as to the rule or measure of damages. The majority held that the changes in the mode of doing the stone-work on the buildings did not amount to an abandonment of the contract. Judge Hughes, the minority of the court, dissented and held that they did amount to an abandonment, and that the claimants were entitled to be paid for the work what it was reasonably worth. He also declared in his written opinion that an assessment of damages by his rule would "largely exceed" the amount to be assessed according to the rule adopted by the majority of the court. He therefore declined to take any part in awarding the damages. The majority of the court awarded to the claimants the sum of $36,440 94. Had the majority adopted the other rule of damages, they doubtless would have felt authorized by the testimony to award a sum as large as that passed by the committee. Your committee, after careful examination and reflection, concur in opinion with the minority of the court, and think the claimants are entitled to be paid for the stone-work on both these buildings what the same is fairly worth, and by the same rule for the whole work on the enlarged and altered parts of the building at Buffalo. They also are of the opinion that they are entitled to be paid for the damages occasioned by the delay of the work at Buffalo, and also for some small "extras" on both buildings, as above stated. Your committee have examined the testimony taken before the Court of Claims and the briefs and arguments of the counsel for the respective parties, and are of the opinion that the Messrs. Latham are entitled to receive the sums stated below, in addition to what has already been paid to them, namely: 1. For the stone-work on the Buffalo building, and for 2. For small items of extra work on that building. 4. For the stone-work on the Oswego building. $54,229 25 1,560 80 4,125 00 37,437 45 2,856 09 100,208 59 Your committee are fully satisfied that the testimony in this case will amply sustain these amounts. Indeed, they feel sure that they are below rather than above what the proof would warrant. Your committee are sustained in this view of the matter by comparing the cost of the two buildings at Buffalo and Oswego (on the basis adopted in this report) with the cost of two buildings, of exactly |