« AnteriorContinuar »
Francisco in, say, one hundred and twenty days. They have been made within ninety days or thereabouts, and often within one hundred and one hundred and ten days. However, those are extraordinary trips. From one hundred and twenty or one hundred and twentyfive days to one hundred and forty days is a common trip for any good sailing vessel; but the Wateree, a steamship, a new ship, was I think more than eight months finding her way there. I only stated what came within my knowledge in that connection, and also in connection with that the statement made from the Department to me on the subject.
Mr. NYE. If the Senator from California will allow me to make a suggestion to him, the Monadnock is generally considered a good ship, and she was five months in getting to Rio Janeiro.
upon a contract considerably above a million dollars, the entire cost of the vessels, including half a million of extra work which was ordered by the general inspector being above two million dollars. Now, upon work, the contract price of which is above a million dollars, the board allow above three hundred thousand dollars for losses sustained by the contractors. Upon an examination of the facts we see that labor has gone up nearly one hundred per cent. during the time that this work was carried on; some qualities of iron above one hundred per per cent., and much of it approaching one hundred per cent.; so that when the contract was made, it was made with a view to the then prices, and the Government caused the delay of perhaps a full year by the change in the plan of the work, and during that period it went on advancing from month to month until this enormous price had to be paid for labor and material. I do not claim that it cost the contractors an additional hundred per cent. for their material and labor, for much of the work, of course, was done and much of the materials were purchased by the contractors before the labor and materials had reached this very high price; but I say that in view of the great increase of prices, this allowance did not seem to me to be extravagant.
The board do not seem to have examined these cases as an omnibus bill, but they examined each case, heard the evidence, and decided upon each case. Take the case that has been referred to by the Senator from New Hampshire; a party claimed $74,000 upon a contract of $82,000. The bureau of the Navy Department in its communication to the Committee on Naval Affairs has referred to that. It has not referred to the award made by the board, but has referred to the claim made by the party. My notion is, that it was not an honest claim; at least, it was not such a claim as ought to have been allowed, and it was not allowed. The board reduced it to $12,000. The Senator thought it was $18,000.
Mr. CLARK. I made a mistake.
Mr. HENDRICKS. In fact it was $18,000. I will explain to the Senator how he has been misled. The claim was for $74,000. The allowance is $18,000; but that allowance of $18,000 includes about $6,000 of extra work, which has been allowed by the Department, but has not been paid to the parties. The record shows that; so that the real allowance by the board for losses was $12,000 instead of $74,000.
Mr. CLARK. I said they had allowed $18,000.
Mr. HENDRICKS. They did allow $18,000, but $6,000 of that was for additional work required by the Department.
A word in regard to the Wateree, upon which the Senator from California [Mr. CONNESS] made a speech the other day. He says he has a personal knowledge of the Wateree and that it proved to be a defective vessel. I am not going to discuss with the Senator his information with regard to that vessel, hor his competency to judge of whether it was a wellbuilt vessel or not. He is satisfied that the Wateree was not a well-built vessel. The Department does not agree with the Senator, although he thinks he got some of his information from the Department, but I think in part be must be mistaken, for the resolution which authorized the Secretary of the Navy to organize this board closed with this sentence: "None but those that have given satisfaction to the Department to be considered."
The Secretary of the Navy had no right to refer any case to this board where the parties in the construction of the work had not given full satisfaction to the Department. Mr. CONNESS. Will the Senator permit me to interrupt him?
Mr. HENDRICKS. Certainly. Mr. CONNESS. I deduced my conclusion with regard to the Wateree in part from the performance of the ship, which I presume is very good testimony in the case. Our sailing vessels make trips from New York to San
Mr. CONNESS. We were, too.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Anybody who is a judge of these vessels would be surprised; and the fact that she labored hard to get to California, going around South America, and it took her months to get there, is no evidence that she is not a good vessel; and the Senator would have so known if he had studied the structure of the vessel and the purpose for which that class of vessels was constructed. It is not a sea-going vessel. It was not intended to be. It is a double ender-a vessel constructed during the war, for the purpose of going into the rivers and creeks; and it is made a doubleender because it is likely to be used in rivers so narrow that they cannot turn. It is made with rudders and machinery, so that it can run
either way. It belongs to the class of iron double-enders, and it is not at all a sea-going vessel. It was supposed to be necessary to have such a vessel on the California coast, and I suppose, the Department ran the risk of taking this vessel to sea around this very long
Mr. CONNESS. I beg the Senator's pardon for saying one word here. She was not sent to California to ascend any river.
Mr. HENDRICKS. Then I take that back. I do not want to discuss immaterial matters.
Mr. CONNESS. She was sent there for a sea-going vessel, a man-of-war, and is now on the South American station as such.
Mr. GRIMES. The only difficulty in getting these double-enders around the Pacific is, while they are in the Atlantic ocean. As the name indicates, the Pacific ocean is a pacific ocean, and these vessels, when they are once around Cape Horn, can perform good service in the ocean and on the ocean.
same sort of service on the Pacific coast that I have been informed they were intended to perform on the Atlantic coast. I believe the Senator from Iowa, who is very familiar with this entire subject, agrees with me that they are not suited for the rough sea of the Atlantic
Mr. JOHNSON. Have you been on the Pacific?
Mr. GRIMES. No, sir; but I have read of the Pacific, as I suppose the Senator has.
Mr. CONNESS. What the Senator from Iowa says is true.
Mr. JOHNSON. It is pacific only in name. Mr. GRIMES. There seems to be a contrariety of opinion here. The Senator from Maryland says that it is only pacific in name, and the Senator from California says my statement is true.
Mr. CONNESS. The Senator from land made one voyage.
Mr. JOHNSON. I made two. Mr. GRIMES. At any rate, while they are not adapted to the navigation of the Atlantic ocean there are two or three of these vessels there the Mohongo and the. Wateree; and these vessels are found to be well adapted, I believe, to the service there.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I am glad to hear that the Department has not made a mistake in sending these vessels around to the Pacific coast. I supposed they were intended for the
Mr. CONNESS. The Senator will be kind enough to permit me to interrupt him one minute further, so as to give him my whole statement of the case. He will remember that I stated that upon the arrival of the Wateree on our coast she had to be taken into dock and a very heavy expense-I do not state the figures, for I have not got them, but those figures can be obtained at the Navy Department-a very heavy expense was entailed upon the Government by reason of the bad material used in her construction. That was the statement I made. That was the information I had from the Navy Department. I certainly did not, in what I undertook to say, intend to reflect on the vessel at all, but to state facts that had come within my knowledge.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I do not intend, I will state to the Senator from California, to give great weight to this particular case, and therefore I do not want to discuss it at great length. I will say a word or two in reply to him. The Wateree was not intended for sea service. She was put upon the ocean and taken around to California. It took her a long time to go there. It is a matter of surprise to me that she ever got there, as she was not intended for that sort of service. She gets there; she is bruised and battered during the voyage; and then is placed upon the stocks and is repaired at great expense.
Mr. CONNESS. I know the Senator will pardon me for interrupting him again.
Mr. HENDRICKS. I will ask the Senator to conclude what he has to say on this subject, and then I will make a remark or two, and we will drop the subject of the Waterec.
Mr. CONNESS. I give the floor to the Senator. I do not desire to intrude upon him. Mr. HENDRICKS. Does the Senator wish to say anything further?
Mr. CONNESS. As the Senator has called my statement in regard to the Wateree in question, I thought it would be acceptable to him for me to make myself understood on that subject. The Suwanee, subsequently sent to the Pacific coast, is a double-ender also, of the same class as the Wateree, and very nearly the same size. She went there in a great deal less time, performed better, and when she arrived there was in good order and condition. What I said strictly applied to the condition of the Wateree and her construction.
Mr. HENDRICKS. The Suwanee was of the same class, manufactured by the same house, at the same yard, for the same price, I believe, and a little less was allowed for the loss on her by the board. She made her voy: age to California in a little less time than the Wateree. That does not prove that the Wateree was not a good vessel. As I said before, I presume the Wateree had to encounter a sea which her construction and style did not fit her for, and when she got to California she had to be repaired. Senators know very well, and the Senator from California knows very well, the cost of repairing vessels in California. I believe that labor cost five dollars and $5 50 per day in gold at the Government works at Mare Island when gold was 250, making labor on that coast to cost, in the Government curMary-rency of the country, ten, twelve, or fourteen dollars a day; and of course it cost a great deal to repair a vessel there. I do not have it from the Department, and I do not know how true it is, but the gentleman told me that one of the vessels that was constructed in a Government yard was taken to California, and was so battered in the voyage that she was put upon the stocks at the Mare Island navy-yard, and it cost as much to repair her upon that side at the enormous rates paid there, as it would cost to build her upon this side. It may not be ro. It cost a very considerable sum of money at
any rate. There is no question about that, I presume.
Now, sir, we have the evidence of the Department in submitting the case of the Wateree to this naval board that they considered her satisfactory, for the resolution did not allow any claim to go before the board unless the work was done to the satisfaction of the Department. In the next place, we have a statement from the Department addressed to the Committee on Naval Affairs, which the chairman of the committee read the other day, and there is no objection made to the Wateree, to her machinery, or to the style of her construction by that report that I now recollect. There is some objection made to another vessel, to some wood work on the Mohongo, but I believe no objection was made in that report or memoranda to any other vessel that is mentioned in this award. Now, Mr. President, to conclude what I have to say on this subject, the Senate at the last session referred this whole subject to the Navy Department, and authorized the Secretary of the Navy to organize a board to estimate the amount of the losses that were sustained by these contractors. Was that right? Was it right for the Senate to contemplate the payment to these contractors of the losses that they necessarily sustained? As an original proposition, is it right? Is there any Senator here that desires to see these men broken up for work done for the Government during the war? On that subject I will read what is said in the report of the committee:
cerned. The prices from that time went on from day to day and from month to month advancing. These contracts were made by some below their own propositions, and at barely fair prices at the then current rates. Is there any Senator here who wishes to see these men broken up merely because they entered into contracts with the Government? Is there any Senator here who wishes to say to these men, We have your bond, and we will hold you to your bond; we will take the blood out of your business; we will have the pound of flesh."
Mr. President, with this evidence before the Senate I cannot conceive it possible that Senators would desire to enforce a rule that between private individuals it is felt would be a hard rule to enforce. If a mechanic were to enter into a contract with any Senator here for the erection of a house, and it should afterward be proved that the material and labor cost much more than was expected, is there any Senator here who would be willing to take that house upon the bond and see the mechanic broken up? As between man and man, this would be regarded as a hard rule. Between the Government and the citizen who undertakes in a time of pressing need to produce that which the Government must have it is an oppressive and outrageous rule, in my judgment, that would hold him to his contract and his bond.
But, sir, the committee say further:
"The committee believe that in many other cases the completion of the work was delayed by the action of the Department, because it is the concurrent testimony of many of the contractors that such was the case, and also because it could not be otherwise, inasmuch as the art of building iron-clad ships-ofwar was not then perfect; it was yet in experiment, so much so that constant modifications of the plans became necessary as the use of completed vessels discovered defects or suggested improvements.' And it would have been a failure of duty on the part of the Department had it failed to introduce any improvement at any time during the progress of the work; and to the fact that diligence and care were observed in that regard is in part to be attributed the production of a navy so perfect and so formidable."
But suppose the Government had not interfered at all, and had not from time to time directed modifications of this work, which caused delay, and which threw upon the contractors the necessity of buying material and employing labor at greatly increased prices; suppose the contractors had made a mistake simply in regard to the cost of the work; and suppose that during the war they gave their entire energies to the production of a navy that astonished the world; are Senators willing that these enterprising citizens shall be broken up in such an enterprise? Was it a commendable thing that they undertook these contracts? Our navy-yards were fitted for the work of ordinary times, but they were not of sufficient capacity to produce a navy such as was required during this war. These citizens undertook the work. They have met with misfortune. Ought that misfortune to be borne by the people, or should these contractors be crushed in their patriotic enterprise? I admit, unquestionably, that the hope of making a profit may have influenced them to some extent; but upon that subject I will ask the attention of the Senate to the facts reported by the committee:
"From Messrs. Lenthall and Isherwood, of the Navy Department, and Mr. Wood, the general inspector, the committee learned that the petitioners entered into their contracts upon public competition, after general notice; that the lowest bid in a class was taken as a standard, which those bidding higher had to adopt, and that the prices were barely fair at the then current rates;' that the petitioners dealt fairly and honestly by the Government in procuring the very best material which they could command, and doing the best quality of work, and that they were diligent in adopting all measures in their power to complete he work within the stipulated time."
This evidence, as I recollect, was brought before the committee at the last session, and this is an extract incorporated into this report from the report that was made to the Senate at the last session of Congress. Then these contracts were made by these men at prices barely fair at the then current rates; barely fair in September, 1862, so far as many of the vessels are con
The delays occasioned in the work by the changes of the plans caused large losses to the contractors; first, by leaving their labor unemployed for the time upon their hands; second, by requiring them to carry insurance and interest; third, by the constant and rapid increase of the cost of labor and materials, and the depreciation of the currency, for which the Department could not give adequate and complete relief. The delays worked a special hardship upon the builders of the nine vessels first mentioned, as it was provided in their contracts that they should each receive $500 per day for every day their vessels were completed before the time limited for their completion. From Mr. Wood, the present general inspector, the committee learned that this class of contractors, to overcome the delay occasioned by the changes in the plans and waiting for the specifications, and to meet the earnest requirement of the Department for an early completion of the vessels, proscented the work at night and on Sundays, and that for such work they were compelled to pay double prices, for which the Department did not and could not make them any compensation.'
Again, they say:
"The committee are satisfied that the petitioners have sustained, and are sustaining, heavy losses, which it was not in their power to avoid after making their contracts. The contracts were generally for large amounts, and required a long time for their completion. It was impossible for them to make provision for all the material required, or to foresee and provide against the great advance in the price of labor. The demand for iron of peculiar and large sizes and fine quality was great, the supply small, and the means of producing it in the country limited. New machinery for preparing and rolling it was necessary; under such circumstances builders of iron ships and heavy machinery could not contract in advance for such quantities as would be required, even could they advance the money, so that they were compelled to abide the fortunes of the market. During the progress of the work, by many of the petitioners, labor and materials have advanced, perhaps, one hundred per cent. This was not foreseen either by the reekless or the most prudent. The increased cost of labor and materials outran the calculation of every one. Ought the losses resulting from such a state of facts to fall entirely upon the petitioners? The committee think not. First, for the reason that the Government, by her own competition for skilled labor and material, contributed materially to the losses. Seeond, the Government, by the mode and manner in which she imposed her taxes, contributed to the result."
with the marks of the enemy's cannon balls upon her. And now, sir, as she lies at your navy-yard battered and bruised, here, having come out of the war, proving herself to be a first-class vessel, of great value in bringing the war to a close, is there any Senator willing to say to the enterprising firm who built her, "We have got your vessel; she has done us valuable service: she helped to take a most difficult point, Fort Fisher, where failure had occurred before; a point that had to be taken in order to stop the supplies of Richmond; she has helped to reduce Wilmington; she has contributed very largely to bringing this war to a close; but we will hold you to your contract, and you shall bear this loss of $119,000?"
As to the question that is raised, and the most plausible objection, and the most difficult to answer, that this is an omnibus bill, we cannot examine each case. The entire Senate is unable to do that. But at the last session, upon the motion of the Senator from Nevada, this question was referred to the Navy Department. Are you willing to risk a question of this sort with the Department that represents the Gov ernment? Are you distrustful of the Secretary of the Navy in the selection of a board? Who can best examine a question of this sort? You admit these men ought not to be broken up for work they have done during the progress of the war. You admit that the changes of the market ought not to fall upon them and crush them when the Government has received the benefit of their enterprise and investments. Then you say we ascertain what allowance ought to be made? At the last session the Senate said it was a safe thing to submit that question to the Navy Department, and you said to the Secretary of the Navy, "Select a board." You did not impose the duty of investigation upon the Secretary himself, but you said to him, "Select a board and ascertain how much these men have lost." Were not these men authorized to infer from that resolution that you intended to pay the losses that it was proved had been sustained? You said to the Secretary, "Organize your board, and submit these cases to the board, but do not submit any case where the work is not entirely satisfactory; but if a man has done his work well, if the vessel has proven to be a good vessel, submit it to the board, and let the board take the evidence and That report to us how much the losses are." is not an omnibus proposition, because each case went before the board upon its own separate merits. The board was organized in June, 1865, by the Secretary of the Navy. For what purpose? For the purpose of ascertaining, safely to the Government, fairly to the contractors, what was the amount of loss in each particular case. Is it not fair to infer that the Secretary of the Navy would select men that were qualified for that duty? I think he did select such men. Who are they? I disagree with the Senator from Iowa with regard to this board, as I understand it.
I will not read further from the report, and will now leave this question, so far as I am concerned, with the Senate. When the cases of these contractors were presented to the committee, and referred to myself along with the distinguished gentlemen who were associated with me on the sub-committee, I gave the subject very close attention. I soon became interested in the examination, and during the progress of the examination I went to the navyyard, and I saw one of these vessels, the Mahopac, a vessel that has cost the firm who built it $119,000 more than the Government has paid for it. That vessel has gone through the strife of the war. She was in the James river when her services were very important. She rendered very valuable service at Fort Fisher, and came out of it battered and bruised
Here is Commodore Thomas O. Selfridge. I understand that before the war he was in charge of the navy-yard in California. and was supposed to be qualified for the very business of superintending the construction of vessels and the repair of machinery, and he is now, as I understand, in charge of the navy-yard at Philadelphia. Is it not fair to presume, then, that the learned Senator from Iowa is mistaken in his suggestion to the Senate that Commodore Selfridge was a competent man on board ship, but probably did not understand very much about machinery. The Government has found him peculiarly well quali fied; and I understand that he was selected upon this board for the reason that during most of the time this work was being done and these contracts made Commodore Selfridge was in California and knew nothing about these contractors or their claims, and came as an entire stranger to them and went upon the board without any feeling, prejudice, or previously formed opinion. I submit to Senators, if Commodore Selfridge is fit to be at the head of the navy-yard at Philadelphia, is he
not competent on a board to investigate the question whether a man has sustained a loss or not in the building of a ship?
The next member of the board is Chief Engineer Montgomery Fletcher. I understand that when these contracts were made and this work was done, he, too, was not here, but was at some distant point, I do not know where, but was entirely removed from any influence these contractors could bring to bear upon him. He was an engineer. He ranks, I believe, in the Navy, along with Isherwood, who is in the Department. I do not know that he is so competent and so skillful a man. I do not make any comparison of that sort; but I say his rank as a naval officer, I believe, is equal to that of the engineer in the Navy Department. He is an engineer in the Navy Department by his profession, and by his studies is well qualified to make these investigations.
scious as anybody can be that there is a great
contracts, and all their wealth and the wealth of their friends, in many instances, was embarked in the execution of their contracts. In the mean time the Government, with whom the contract was made, levies a duty not contemplated by the contractors at the time the contracts were made, on many articles necessary for them to use in fulfilling their contracts. It also laid a direct tax on many things, and laid them three or four times on some things that it was necessary for them to use in order to fulfill their contracts. Then not only was there a call for the labor they had anticipated, and supposed they would be able to use in their thor-yards, but there was a conscription ordered, and in addition to that, we passed a law declaring that all mechanics and artisans who were employed by the United States in the navyyards should not be conscripted, while all the mechanics and artisans who were employed by these private contractors were subject to conscription; and hence, those who did not go voluntarily into the Army, in many instances, were induced to go into the Government navyyards in order to avoid conscription.
Mr. JOHNSON. They were "drafted" not "conscripted," as we were told.
Mr. GRIMES. I will not stand on terms; the proper term may have been "drafted." Now, although there may not be any legal claim upon the Government in such cases as these, it seems to me that these contractors present a very strong case in equity. I think that if I enter into a contract with the Senator from Maryland to execute a piece of work, and he uses any means, having the power to do so, to enhance the price of the execution of that work, if I could not enjoin him from doing so, at least I could recover the excess that through his instrumentality I was compelled to pay. Mr. JOHNSON. Unless I had a right to do it.
Then there is Paymaster Eldredge. I understand that he was selected because of his skill as an accountant. These claims of course involved the examination of very elaborate accounts, and I understand they were oughly examined; and he is one of the most skillful accountants in the employ of the Navy Department, and because of his qualifications in that respect he was selected.
I believe that this was a very competent board. Is the Senate not willing to risk a board so organized, selected from the skilled men of the Department by the Secretary of the Navy, to make a particular investigation, safe to the Government, as I remarked, and just to the contractors? They sat for five months, from June till December, heard the evidence, examined the claims, examined the accounts, and made their award on the 23d day of December last. Can we not trust to an investigation of this sort? If Senators say that it is right to make up to these men their losses without any profit, can you have a better assurance that the right has been ascertained than you do have when a board so organized makes a report?
Now, sir, I think it is safe to rely on that report. The Senator from Iowa-and I say to the Senate that on a question of this sort we ought all of us to give very much weight to his suggestions, for he is very competent, very thoroughly informed on every question in relation to the Navy, and we all know that he brings to the investigation of any subject a most honest purpose, just, as he understands it, to the Government and to all the partiesthinks that the report of this board is not suf ficiently reliable for Congress to make an appropriation upon. I am not quite able to agree with him on that point, but if he shall feel it to be his duty, as I understand he will, to propose an amendment limiting the amount of allowance to a percentage upon the contract price, I do not know that I shall seriously oppose it. If any of these parties shall find it impossible to live under that allowance, they can present their particular claims to Congress, if they choose to do so, hereafter. I submit the question with what I have said to the Senate. Mr. GRIMES. I offer as a substitute for the bill the following:
That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the several parties the awards made in their favor by the naval board organized under the resolution of the Senate adopted March 9, 1865, the awards being made under date of December 23, 1865, and reported to the Secretary of the Navy: Provided, The payments shall not in any case exceed twelve per Cet. on the contract price, except in the case of the Camanche, in which case the award shall be paid in fail.
Mr. NYE. I desire to get this question settled in some way. If the Senate wish to postpone the question so that it shall come up tomorrow at one o'clock, I will not object.
Mr. GRIMES. It will be observed that the amendment I have proposed as a substitute to the bill that came from the committee, is to allow to each one of the contractors named in the award made by the naval officers twelve per cent. of the amount of the contract. As I stated to the Senate the other day, when this subject was under consideration, I am as con
Mr. GRIMES. It is a question of conscience at any rate, if it is not a question of law. Now, the amount that I have proposed is twelve per cent. Senator will observe by the table that is appended to the report of the committee that during the time that these contracts were being carried into execution, the enhancement in the prices of labor and material was greatly in excess of that amount, from seventy-five to one hundred per cent. I think. The difference between the proposition which I have proposed and the award of the board is the difference between about $1,100,000 and $2,230,000.
Mr. JOHNSON. Twelve per cent. would give $1,100,000.
Mr. GRIMES. Yes, sir. It is a reduction of one half.
Mr. WADE. I move that the bill be postponed until to-morrow, and that the amendinent be printed.
Mr. SUMNER. I send to the Chair an amendment which I wish to make to the proposition of the Senator from Iowa, or to the original bill, either. It is the amendment relating to Donald McKay.
Several SENATORS. Let it be read.
Mr. WADE. I move that these amendments be printed, and that the bill be postponed until
Mr. NYE. I move to strike out the word "twelve" and insert the word "fifteen" in the amendment of the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. JOHNSON. That will go over with the.
And be it further enacted, That in the case of Donald McKay, of Boston, Massachusetts, who built the Ashuelot and machinery, and Miles Greenwood, of Cincinnati, Ohio, who built the Tippecanoe, whose contracts have been completed to the satisfaction of the Department, and who were prevented from appearing before the naval board, shall be entitled to the same rate of compensation as is authorized to be paid to other parties building the same class of vessels and machinery; and such payment to be made to them out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, under the supervision and direetion of the Secretary of the Navy: Provided, The evidence submitted for his examination fully establishes the right of said parties to compensation."
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. POMEROY in the The Senator from Ohio
that the bill be postponed until to-morrow, and that the amendments be printed. The motion was agreed to.
Mr. WADE. I move to take up Senate bill No. 190.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of bill S. No. 190, to incorporate the District of Columbia Canal and Sewerage Company.
The Secretary commenced to read the bill. Mr. WADE. This bill has been up before; I suppose it is not necessary to read any more than the amendments reported by the committee since its recommittal."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to consider the amendments reported.
The first amendment of the Committee on the District of Columbia was in line twenty-one of section one to strike out "hold and convey real estate and other property.'
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was in line twenty-four of section one, to insert "and" after "money." The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was in line twenty-four of section one, to strike out "their" before "franchise," and insert "its."
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was to strike out all of the second section, after the enacting clause, and in lieu of the words stricken out to insert:
That the said company is hereby authorized and empowered to survey, locate, lay out, and construct a canal and sewer between the Anacostia river, commonly known as the Eastern branch, from a point thereon near its junction with the Potomacriver, to a point on the old canal near Virginia avenue, which thence in. along, and through said old canal to the western corporate limits of said city of Washington; and thence to the Chesapeake and Ohio canal at or near Georgetown, in the District of Columbia. The said canal and sewer, when constructed, shall constitute and remain a depository and duct for the sewerage from the city of Washington, and from the property of the United States therein; and the proper corporate authorities of the city of Washington shall always have unrestricted and full power to determine where the sewers of said city shall connect with the said canal and sewer, and the manner in which said connection shall be made, so as the manner of making the connection shall not injure or impair the bank of said canal and sewer where the connection shall be made, nor shall the said District of Columbia Canal and Sewerage Company make any charge or receive any compensation for any connection of sewers. The canal and sewer shall be cut to the depth of ten feet below high tide as it usually rises; and shall be seventy feet wide at the water-line, with the usual slope to the banks; and shall at all times be kept in good and navigable repair, and all sediment or deposits collecting in the same from the city sewers or otherwise shall be kept cleaned out so that the tide may constantly flow through the same; and the said company shall have the exclusive right to assess and collect tolls upon said canal and also upon the wharves and docks of the same.
Mr. CLARK. I move to amend this amendment of the committee in the forty-ninth line on page 4 by inserting after the word " connection" the words "or drainage;" so that the clause will read:
Nor shall the said District of Columbia Canal and Sewerage Company make any charge or receive any compensation for any connection or drainage of
The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CLARK. In line fifty-one I move to amend by inserting the word "low" before
water; so as to make it read, " seventy feet wide at the low-water line."
The amendment to the amendment "was agreed to.
The amendment, as amended, was agreed to. The next amendment was in section three,
ber to be president of the board of directors, and also
As soon as the aforesaid twenty per cent. on the whole capital stock shall have been subscribed as aforesaid, and the said cash payment of ten per cent. shall have been made, the said corporators, or a majority of them, shall call a meeting of the stockholders, &c.
Mr. JOHNSON. Where is the provision that the other ten per cent. shall be paid in?
Mr. WADE. I did not say that there was a provision that the twenty per cent. shall be paid. Ten per cent. shall be paid; I supposed that was enough. It is a very large expense they are to be at.
Mr. JOHNSON. Twenty per cent. is a small proportion.
The next amendment was to strike out the fourth section of the bill after the enacting clause, and in lieu of it to insert:
The next amendment was to insert as a new section at this point:
That as soon as the aforesaid twenty per cent. on the whole capital stock shall have been subscribed as aforesaid, and the said cash payment of ten per cent. shall have been made, the said corporators, or a majority of them, shall call a meeting of the stockholders at the National Hotel, in the city of Washington, by advertisement in one or more of the daily newspapers printed in the city of Washington ten days previous to such meeting; and the said stockholders, in person or by proxy, shall proceed to the election from among the stockholders, by ballot, of seven directors for conducting and managing the business of said company for the term of one year from the time of their election. The said directors, so elected, shall immediately appoint one of their num
SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That the said president, directors, and treasurer shall continue in office one year from the time of their election, and the directors shall fill any vacancy which may happen in their own body during the term for which they were elected, and in case of the death, resignation, or disqualification of the president or treasurer, they may elect a president or treasurer to serve for the residue of the term: and the stockholders, in one year after the day on which the election of directors shall be first made, and on the same day in every year thereafter, (excepting the same shall happen on Sunday, and in that case on the day succeeding,) shall elect by ballot a new board of seven directors from among the stockholders, from whom a president and treasurer shall be forthwith appointed to serve one year, all of whom shall, in manner and form aforesaid, take the oaths aforesaid; and the president and directors, for the time being, shall give public notice in one or more of the newspapers published in the city of Washington, at least ten days previous to the expiration of the time for which they were elected. Each stockholder shall be entitled to one vote for every share of stock held by him at the time; and any stockholder, by written authority under his hand, and executed in the presence of two witnesses, may depute any other stockholder to vote and act as proxy for him at any general meeting.
Mr. JOHNSON. The member from Ohio said that a provision was in the bill that twenty per cent. should be paid in, but that is not the provision; only ten per cent. is to be paid in. Mr. WADE. At the time of subscription ten per cent. is to be paid in.
Mr. WADE. That is right.
Mr. JOHNSON. But that is all they are under an obligation to pay before they begin the work. What I suggested was that before they began the work they should have twenty per cent. paid in.
The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CLARK. They cannot call a meeting until twenty per cent. has been paid, not even a meeting to organize. Look at page 7 and you will see as soon as the aforesaid twenty per cent.," &c.
Mr. JOHNSON. What I think ought to be done-I do not see that it is done by any provision I have yet observed-is to require that they should pay twenty per cent. before they commence work. Mr. CLARK. If the Senator will look to page 7 he will see.
Mr. WADE. It reads:
Mr. WILLEY. I think there should be an amendment in the seventeenth line. There was an omission of the printer or draughtsman. After the word "notice," in the seventeenth line, I move to insert the words "for a new election;" so that the clause will read, "and the president and directors, for the time being, shall give public notice for a new election in one or more of the newspapers published in the city of Washington, at least ten days previous to the expiration of the time for which they were elected.'
Mr. CLARK. I think that the section had better be amended in line twenty-three. There is a provision that a stockholder may depute any other stockholder to vote for him by proxy. Why should he be confined to "any other stockholder?" Why not "any person?" It may be for his interest to select some one outside of the corporation when he cannot go himself. He should not be confined to a stockholder.
Mr. JOHNSON. It is not usual with us to allow others than stockholders to act as proxies. Mr. CLARK.. It is with us.
Mr. WILLEY. In drafting the amendment I followed what was the usage as far as I was acquainted with the usage.
Mr. CLARK. I move to amend by striking
holder" the words "or other person;" that
will be better.
Mr. WADE. Very well. I have no objection to that.
Mr. CLARK. I will adopt the suggestion of the Senator from West Virginia, and move to add "or other person."
Mr. SPRAGUE. That seems to me a very singular amendment. Here is a stockholders' outsiders. It is something quite new to me in meeting in which it is proposed to introduce the organization of companies. I have never known it to be done in any meeting I have attended.
Mr. CLARK. It is done oftentimes.
depute to go. Shall he not have the privilege? He knows about his business. Must he send his proxy to somebody else who is a member of the corporation?
Mr. WILLEY. He need not send his son; he might make another stockholder his proxy.
Mr. CLARK. But he may instruct his son as to what he wants to do. His son may be in such intimate relations that he chooses to have him vote for him. He cannot instruct him in everything that may come up. There is no harm in it certainly.
The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
The amendment, as amended, was adopted.. The next amendment, was to insert, after the section just inserted, the following:
SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That the treasurer of the said company shall, before he acts as such, give bond to the company in such penalty, and with such security as the president and directors shall require, conditioned for the faithful discharge of the duties and trusts committed to him. The salaries of the officers of the said company shall be fixed by the board of directors.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was to add at this point:
SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That the shares in said company shall be deemed personal and not real estate, and shall be transferable in such manner as the board of directors shall prescribe, and the shares held by any individual shall be liable to be attached or taken in execution by fieri facias to satisfy the debts due from any such individual, in like manner as other personal property may be.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was to insert after the amendment last adopted the following:
SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That the said president and directors, and their successors, shall have full power to demand and receive of the stockholders in equal proportion, the remaining four fifths of the shares of stock, from time to time, as they shall judge necessary; and if any of the stockholders shall neglect or refuse to pay their proportions within one month after the same shall have been required, the share or shares shall be forfeited: Provided, That notice shall be given by advertisement in one or more of the daily newspapers published in the city of Washington, for ten days, of the time when the same shall be required to be paid.
Mr. SPRAGUE. So much the worse.
Mr. CLARK. Here is a man the owner of stock; he is sick and unable to attend, and his son may be a very proper person for him to
Ishould like to know from the committee the exact meaning of this section. What do they mean by "the remaining four fifths of the shares of stock?"
Mr. WILLEY. You will observe, by a preceding section, that they are required to pay twenty per cent., which is one fifth, on subscribing. Then in order to get the remaining four fifths this section provides that they shall pay it in the manner here prescribed.
Mr. JOHNSON. But it says "four fifths of the shares," not "four fifths of what is due on the shares."
Mr. CLARK. As I understand the section, it seems to me very objectionable indeed. As soon as twenty per cent. or one fifth of the stock is subscribed, this corporation may proceed, and ten per cent. is all that is to be paid in. Now, as I understand it, this provision is that the gentlemen who subscribe the one fifth in the first instance are to be liable to subscribe for the other four fifths by and by. That must be the clear meaning of it.
Mr. JOHNSON. That is what I supposed to be the meaning of it.
Mr. CLARK. It certainly should not be so. A man may be supposed in the first instance to take all the stock in the corporation he wants, and on that he is assessed ten per cent. But what is this section?
That the said president and directors, and their successors, shall have full power to demand and receive of the stockholders, in equal proportion, the remaining four fifths of the shares of stock.
Mr. JOHNSON. I rose for the purpose inquiring whether that was the purpose. requires any stockholder to take his proportion of the rest of the stock although he may not be willing to do it; and even if he was willing to do it, the effect of the provision is to secure the whole of this stock to the persons who first subscribe, and to compel them to take it. That is not the object, I suppose."
Mr. WADE. I do not understand it so.
take in the designation of the chief justice. In the twenty-second and twenty-third lines of the section, on page 11, he is designated as "the chief justice of the United States district court for the District of Columbia." I think it should be chief justice of the supreme court of the District of Columbia.
misunderstanding in regard to it, for I certainly think the Senator from Ohio would not have reported such a provision.
Mr. WADE. I suppose if a man has subscribed for stock and paid in one fifth of it, if in one month after a demand is made upon him and he refuses to pay the balance he should forfeit the stock. Surely he cannot hold it forever. It is a very common provision.
Mr. JOHNSON. That is right enough. Mr. WILLEY. The object of this section is very plain, but perhaps not well expressed. move, in order to meet the objections of Senators, after the word "stock," in the fourth line, to insert "by them respectively subscribed."
Mr. CLARK. But I think that does not accomplish what the Senator from Ohio understands by this section. As I understand it, one fifth is to be subscribed, and one tenth or ten per cent. of that is to be paid in. Now, you want a provision that the other nine tenths which is to be paid shall be paid in on the stock subscribed.
Mr. WILLEY. That is the object of the section.
Mr. CLARK. The amendment which the Senator from West Virginia proposes would not accomplish that. I think, perhaps, he had better pass this by, and something can be framed to accomplish the purpose very readily. Mr. JOHNSON. It had better be passed by
for a time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. This amendment will be laid by for the time being informally, if there be no objection. The Chair hears no objection.
The next amendment was in section [six] ten, to strike out from line one to line eleven the following words:
Said company is hereby authorized and empowered to purchase, lease, receive, and hold real estate, and any other property which shall be deemed necessary for the use of said company; but all such real estate or other property, whether public or private, shall be acquired by purchase of the same upon terms to be agreed upon between said company and the owners of any property which said company may desire to lease or purchase for the purposes aforesaid; and in case the owners of such property cannot agree upon the terms of the sale thereof, or.
And in lieu of these words to insert:
The said company are hereby authorized and empowered to take, purchase, and hold for the purposes of this act, so much real estate and other property as shall be necessarily required for the proper Construction of the canal and sewer aforesaid, and for the construction of all proper and convenient basins, locks, reservoirs, docks, and wharves, to be connected with said canal and sewer. And where the said company shall not be able to procure such real estate by purchase from the owner thereof, or the owner thereof.
The amendment was agreed to. The next amendment was in section [six] ten, line thirty-eight, to strike out "and" and
But no such inquisition shall be had until after ten days' notice thereof has been served on the owner of the real estate so to be taken, when he resides in the District of Columbia, or by publication of notice in one or more of the daily newspapers published in the city of Washington for twenty days where such owner resides beyond the said District. When the owner is a feme covert, the notice shall be to her and her husband; when he is a minor, to his guardian; and when he is non compos mentis, to his committee, or the person having the charge of his estate. The.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was in lines fifty-one, fifty-two, and fifty-three of section [six] ten, to
strike out the words: And in case there be good cause shown, said inmay be set aside, and said chief justice shall above described.
And in lieu of them to insert:
Where good cause is thus shown, the said chief justice shall set aside said inquest, and appoint another similar commission, who shall qualify in the sate manner, and whose inquisition shall be taken, returned, filed, and confirmed, or set aside for good cause shown, in the same manner as the first inquiition was taken, returned, filed, and confirmed, or set aside. And such commission and inquisition shall be renewed as often as may be necessary until the inquisition made shall be confirmed.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. JOHNSON. I call the attention of the member from Ohio to what, perhaps, is a mis
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment of the committee was to strike out all of section [ten] fourteen after the enacting clause, and in lieu thereof to insert:
That the said company shall, within thirty days after the passage of this act, cause a constant stream of fresh water to be turned into and upon the said old canal, and to flow through the same from the western corporate limits of the city of Washington to the Anacostia river, and to continue so to flow until the 20th day of October next, in default whereof the said corporators of said company shall forfeit and be jointly and severally liable to pay to the United States the sum of $2,000, recoverable on motion made by the mayor of the city of Washington or any other person, after ten days' notice thereof duly served in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, or any other court having competent jurisdiction. And unless the said canal and sewer shall have been fully constructed and completed in the manner specified in the second section of this act, on or against the 1st day of June, 1867; or, in case the said company shall thereafter fail to keep the said canal and sewer in good repair, or clear of all sediment and deposits as by said section it is required, for three consecutive months, the franchise hereby granted to said company shall be forfeited, and the rights and privileges hereby granted shall revert to the United States.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was to insert as a new section after section [eleven] fifteen :
SEC. 16. And be it further enacted, That in order to aid the said District of Columbia Canal and Sewerage Company in fulfilling the objects and requirements of this act, the use of that part of the Washington canal, and bridges crossing said canal, for the purposes aforesaid, between the junction of Virginia avenue and a point near the foot of Seventeenth street west, at the mouth of Tiber creek, and for the width of seventy feet, to be determined by a line drawn through the center of said canal or channel and extended therefrom on either side thirty-five feet, be, and the same are hereby, vested in the said District of Columbia Canal and Sewerage Company, to have and to hold the same for the use and benefit of the said company.
Mr. WADE. I move to amend the amendment in the eighth line by striking out seventy" and inserting "eighty-two, so as to make it read, "for the width of eighty-two feet." Seventy feet is exactly the width of the canal, leaving no chance for a tow-path or anything of the kind; eighty-two feet is what the committee agreed upon.
The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WADE. It ought to be further amended so that they can build the canal and save rebuilding one bank, for which purpose I move to strike out the words "through the center of said canal or channel and extended therefrom on either side thirty-five feet" and insert "anywhere between the banks of said canal," so as to leave them to make it between the old banks where they please.
Mr. CLARK. I think you had better look into that.
Mr. WADE. I see no objection to this language, to be determined by a line drawn anywhere between the banks of said canal," so that they can use one bank or the other. By the language as it is now, they might have to build up from a line drawn through the middle, so as to be compelled to make two banks when they could use one bank to an advantage. Mr. WILLEY. The previous part of the bill requires the canal to be seventy feet wide at low-water line. This clause as it now stands requires thirty-five feet on each side, which would only be seventy feet wide. That would leave no room at all for making a tow-path. privilege of making a tow-path. It ought to be wider, in order to give them the
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Ohio is to strike out the words "through the center of said canal, or channel, and extended therefrom, on either side, thirty-five feet," and in lieu thereof to insert, anywhere between the banks of said canal."
The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CLARK. I wish to call the attention of the Senator from Ohio to that. I think he had better strike out a little more, "to be determined by a line drawn," because I do not think there is any force in the language as it is I would say, for the width of eightytwo feet, to be taken anywhere between the banks of the said canal;" because possibly by a line drawn anywhere between, you might run it beyond the banks. Mr. WADE. I believe it would mean the same thing, but perhaps that would be better expressed.
I move so to amend the
Mr. CLARK. amendment. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
The amendment, as amended, was agreed to. The next amendment was to insert at this point as a new section:
SEC. 17. And be it further enacted, That nothing in this act contained shall be held or deemed, in any manner or way, to injure or impair any public or private rights or interests, or in any manner to affect the same beyond the mere transfer of the rights of the United States to said District of Columbia Canal and Sewerage Company.
The amendment was agreed to.
The next amendment was to insert after section [twelve] eighteen the following as a new section:
SEC. 19. And be it further enacted, That the said company shall permit all public property belonging to the United States to pass through said canal and sewer free of all charge or toll; and the said company shall, from time to time, as may be required, lay before Congress a just and true account of their receipts and expenditures, with a statement of the clear profits thereof.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WILLEY. I propose further to amend the bill by adding at the end of section eighteen and that the same may be altered, amended, or repealed by Congress.
Mr. CLARK. Put it at the end of section twenty. I have drafted an amendment to strike out "and" in line two of section twenty, and add at the end of the section, "and shall be subject to alteration or repeal;" so that the section will read:
That this act shall be deemed a public act, shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage, and shall be subject to alteration or repeal.
Mr. WILLEY. I accept that. The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CLARK. I will now move to amend the amendment of the committee in section eight, line four, by striking out the words "the remaining four fifths of shares of stock" and inserting "and" in place thereof; so that it will read, "that the said president and directors, and their successors, shall have full power to demand and receive of the stockholders, in equal proportion, and from time to time as they shall judge necessary;" and then to insert after "necessary" the words "such sums as may remain unpaid on any shares of stock, subscribed;" so that the clause will read: